It wasn't asked, so it didn't try to tell. Besides, the issue might not be a question with an answer, the task force's completed report said. "Whether growth is good or bad for Oregon cannot be determined definitively because of the complexity of growth relationships, uncertainty, and the diversity of interests and perspectives," the report said. 

In other words, it's controversial. 

The loss of farmland for housing can be bad for farmers who want to farm and for homeowners who want open spaces. But it's good for farmers who want to sell their land and for homeowners who might find lower prices, the yearlong study found. "Characterizing the choices confronting citizens in the region as pro-growth versus no-growth is wrong both politically and technically," the report said. The presence of both slow-growth and pro-growth advocates on the 15-member panel complicated any effort by the task force to come down on one side or the other. Kitzhaber asked the task force to assemble facts about he effects of growth to help people form conclusions about the amount, type, location and rate of growth that "would be desirable or acceptable." 

Indeed, the report is a 130-page compilation of analysis and facts, ranging from distribution of population to factors that encourage growth to the costs of providing estimates the total cost to be $30,000 to $50,000 for a single-family home, more than other recent estimates. Income inequality is worsening: The top fifth of households earned nine times more than the bottom fifth in 1994-96, compared with seven times more 1988-90, the report said. And the cost of living is slightly higher than the national average, it said, though the cost of housing is slightly less. 

The task force estimated that 1 million more people will live in Oregon by the year 2015 and another million by 2040, raising the total from 3.1 million in 1995 to 5.2 million. More than 70 percent, or 1.7 million, will be from migration. One million more people will require about 500,000 more homes, plus the services that go with them. Newcomers will demand about as much new urban land as now exists in the Portland area's urban-growth boundary, or about 375 square miles. 

The task force concluded, not surprisingly, that the state's growth is highly imbalanced, with most of it occurring in the Portland area and Willamette Valley and less in Oregon's rural areas. Of Oregon's 3.2 million people in 1997, nearly 70 percent were in the Willamette Valley, which has only 14 percent of the state's land area. Seventy percent of the jobs are also in the Willamette Valley. The report said newcomers are drawn to different areas of the state for different reasons. Among them: 

• The Portland area tends to attract younger people, many educated, who are looking for jobs, especially high-tech jobs. 

• Central Oregon attracts older-than-average and wealthier people who are strongly pro-environment. 

• Southern Oregon gets the "oldest newcomers," with slightly higher incomes and considerably more education than the existing population.

It said "very wealthy immigrants" are attracted to two destinations: Clackamas County and, more recently, the Central Oregon counties of Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson. The task force expects no significant change in the imbalance in the near future. It said state and local policies probably could slow growth in the Portland area and Willamette Valley but probably not redistribute it to other parts of the state. Rather, it said, growth discouraged in the Portland area, for example, would more likely occur in cities such as Seattle or Vancouver, British Columbia, than in Pendleton.

"Portland provides specialized cultural, legal, medical and financial services that are not available in Pendleton," it said. "Portland's economy -- both in its size and composition -- is not simply a larger version of Pendleton's economy. It more closely resembles Seattle." It said that there is a link between urban and rural economies of Oregon but that it is "more likely to be complementary than offsetting," so that Eastern Oregon is more likely to grow if Portland does, too. 

Growth Task Force Recommendations

• Ensure that adequate tools exist to help communities plan to protect forests and farmlands and meet other state planning goals; finance the Regional Problem Solving Program; and provide for regionwide planning reviews. 

• Seek improved ways of limiting growth in certain areas to protect natural resources. 

• Allow local governments to tax the added value created when property is added to urban growth boundaries to help defray the cost of growth and promote affordable housing. 

• Develop state mechanisms to help local governments finance infrastructure needs in a timely manner, such as a state-financed loan fund available to municipalities. 

• Gain legislative approval of an increase in the gasoline tax to finance transportation improvements across the state and create financing mechanisms for local transit needs. 

• Consider increasing state technical assistance to local governments to manage growth, such as a "how-to" manual. 

• Establish a task force to "more thoroughly" research growth issues during the 1999-2001 biennium and oversee implementation of these recommendations. The group should "specifically address the basic fairness issues surrounding the question, 'Who should pay for growth?' "

Source: February 28, 1999, Oregonian, by R. Gregory Nokes.Source: February 28, 1999, Oregonian, by R. Gregory Nokes.

The tribes announced their plans Wednesday, including a proposal for a destination resort in the Florence area. And they propose selective logging of some timber stands. 

In 1856, the tribes were moved off nearly 1.6 million acres from Coos Bay north past Florence. The tribes were held captive for almost 20 years at Yachats. They were officially restored in the early 1980s. They are the only remaining Oregon confederated tribes not to be compensated with a cash or land settlement, or both, according to Dick Clarkson, tribal council chairman. Doug Heiken, Western Oregon field representative of the Oregon Natural Resources Council, said he would prefer to have Congress appropriate money for the confederated tribes to buy private forests. 

"We support the fair disposition of Native American tribes," Heiken said. "But the forests have been so mismanaged over the past that we are very reluctant to hand over these protected forest lands and then put them in a status where their protection is in question."

The tribes' forest proposal calls for the U.S. Forest Service to transfer title and management to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bureau would hold and manage the land on behalf of the tribes. Existing public uses would remain. Forest management would continue under President Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan. More than 90 percent of the requested land is designated as having old-growth forest attributes in the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Similar transfers have been done since 1982 for the Siletz, Grande Ronde and, most recently, the Coquille tribes. Those involved Bureau of Land Management forest transfers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is the first proposed Oregon management exchange of Forest Service land. The proposed transfer is detailed in the tribes' Reservation Plan and Forest Land Restoration Proposal. Besides forest land, the document describes an economic self-sufficiency plan based on ecotourism, secondary forest products and a specialty food line. 

The tribes receive some federal assistance. Last year, however, assistance fell $4.3 million short of matching the tribes' $6.6 million tribal program needs. With their maximum requested 95,653-acre forest, the tribes predict that tree thinning and other forestry operations will earn $1.3 million by 2008. By that time, they also want to have a casino and destination resort, earning $3 million and $1.1 million, respectively. The resort would cost $10 million, which the tribes hope to finance through state and federal low-interest community development loans. Source: February 25, 1999, Oregonian, by John Griffith.

Subject: Wastewater treatment plant upset

Comments: High groundwater and accumulative impact of heavy rains have caused an overloading of the treatment plant, causing discharge of partially treated effluent which does not meet permit requirements.

Plant flows have averaged almost 1,400,000 gallons per day for the month of February, with
approximately 1,500,000 gallons experienced for the past week, and higher flows expected 2-23-99 caused by 2.3 inches of rain (instantaneous flows into the plant at 1:00 pm 2-23-99 estimated in excess of 2.7 mgd). Contributing to plant process overload is the restriction on sludge disposal that none be land applied when rainfall exceeds 1 inch per day. This has reduced removal of treated sludge from the digester, which in turn means that there is less room for sludge to be pumped from the clarifiers (this problem will be eliminated with construction of the dewatering portion of the plant improvements, and development of a treated sludge storage facility).  Notifications have been made in accordance with the response plan, and appropriate signs posted. Testing and reporting of results will follow.

It should be noted that in spite of this rainy season being the 3rd wettest since City records were kept starting in 1957, this is only the second flow caused incident this winter (and the incident in December was a 100 year rain event combined with a blown plug in a manhole, allowing flow from the river into the system).

Although the consent agreement is not yet in force, copy of this notice is being sent to Charles
Tebbutt at Western Environmental Law Center, in the spirit of the agreement. Source: City of Florence.

The tribal administrator of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians refused to discuss the matter Monday. But state and federal officials confirmed that the tribe had asked the U.S. Department of the Interior to OK construction of a casino on a 100-acre parcel east of Florence, off Highway 126.

The tribe had proposed a gaming center in 1997 on the city's north end along Highway 101, but it withdrew the proposal after citizens spoke out against the plan. The tribe also briefly considered establishing a casino in Springfield but dropped that plan.

Kitzhaber has refused to allow the tribe to build anywhere other than on tribal land it owns in the Charleston area. That site, however, isn’t considered ideal because the Coquille Tribe already operates The Mill casino in nearby North Bend, which is more accessible to travelers and area residents.

“The community basically said they don’t want it here. That was then. 
I don’t know if the community would react differently now.”

Stephanie Hanna, an Interior Department spokeswoman, said her agency is considering a request by the tribe, in which it has “asserted that they could be exempted from the act.”

The gaming act allows Indian tribes to build a casino on land acquired after 1988 over a governor’s objections only in narrow circumstances. For example, if property is acquired as a settlement to a land claim, or if land is federally acknowledged to be part of an initial reservation, or if land has been legislatively restored to a tribe.

The Charleston-based tribe apparently contends that because a small portion of the 100-acre Florence-area property qualifies under one of these exemptions, the entire parcel should be available for use as a casino. This smaller parcel, known as the Peterman site, was acquired because it has a small burial ground that belonged to the Siuslaw. The much larger, adjacent “Hatch parcel” was purchased more recently.

One of the key issues the Interior Department must decide is whether this larger parcel, too, has the same legal designation as the smaller property, which is “held in trust” by the tribe. Bob Polasky, tribal administrator for the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, would not accept a reporter’s phone call to discuss the matter. And the tribe’s Washington D.C., attorney, Dennis Whittlesey, declined to confirm or deny that the tribe was trying to establish a casino near Florence.

Kitzhaber plans to meet to meet today with Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to discuss a range of issues and may bring up his opposition to the Coos’ request, said Chip Lazenby, Kitzhaber’s legal counsel. “It would be of great consequence to the governor if Interior were to rule in such a way that the governor’s authority is mooted,” Lazenby said. “It could have national repercussions.”

Kitzhaber opposes any effort by Oregon tribes to acquire land outside their reservations for casinos in part because he wants to hold the line on expansion of gambling in the state. He also fears that to do otherwise would send a message to tribes who are competing with one another for the biggest share of Oregon’s gambling dollars, said spokesman Bob Applegate.

“Basically if we do that, what it communicates to the tribe is, find the best piece of property you can find, bring it into trust and build a casino there,” Applegate said. “We don’t want top create a situation where it’s open season for the best available piece of land in downtown Portland or downtown Eugene.”

Former Florence mayor Roger McCorkle, now acting city manager, said that if the past is any indication, a casino wouldn’t be a welcome addition to the coastal city’s attractions. While some might welcome the boost it would give to the economy, the tribe’s effort to establish a casino there in 1997 generated strong opposition from residents who were concerned about traffic and other elements that a casino might attract.

“It was a real negative response,” McCorkle said of the tribes’ bid two years ago. “The community basically said they don’t want it here. That was then. I don’t know if the community would react differently now.” Source: February 23, 1999 Register Guard, by David Steves.

A Village's wastewater treatment plant originally was constructed in 1926. The tributary collection system allows more than "normal" inflow and infiltration (I/I), according to the court. When the plant was upgraded in 1977-78, it was decided to treat the excess flow rather than reduce it. Thus, the upgraded facility was rated at a design hydraulic flow of 1.25 million gallons per day (mgd), but a design organic flow of only 1.0 mgd. 

The first NPDES permit, issued in 1977, provided for effluent limitations of 30 mg/l BOD, and 30 mg/l suspended solids. In 1986, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new NPDES permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) reducing the limits to 20 mg/l BOD, and 25 mg/l suspended solids. The Village objected on the ground that the state regulations required the more stringent limits only for untreated waste loads of 10,000 P.E. or more. The Village pointed out that its plant design was for untreated waste loads up to 10,000 P.E. and that the present loading was under that level. The Village and the Illinois EPA compromised. The plant was re-rated at a 9,900 P.E. design organic load and an NPDES permit was issued at 30/30. In 1992, the permit was renewed at 25 mg/l CBOD, and 30 mg/l suspended solids. 

In 1996, the Illinois EPA issued a draft NPDES permit with a more stringent level of 20 mg/l for CBOD5. It explained that, although the plant was re-rated at 9,900 P.E. organic load, it is hydraulically rated at 12,500 P.E. (based on 1 P.E. being the equivalent of 100 gallons of "sewage" per day). Thus, the agency rated the plant at 1.25 mgd, with the resulting more stringent effluent limits. 

The Village argued that the term "untreated waste load" used in the regulation dictating effluent limits means the amount of wastewater a plant is designed to treat, not the total flow to the plant. Therefore, the Village urged, it was an error to use hydraulic capacity instead of organic loading to calculate "untreated waste load." 

The court disagreed. It found that, in setting effluent limits in an NPDES permit, it is the impact on the treatment plant that must be measured, not the impact on the stream. The court continued, the regulation provides that the impact on the plant is to be measured by the highest of three specified parameters, which is the flow of sewage at 100 gallons per day. "The facility in this case is designed to process 1.25 million gallons per day. Therefore, the impact would be measured at 12,500 P.E., which would then require the facility to adhere to the stricter standard." Id. at 663. 

The Village argued that since the influent comprises both "sewage" and inflow/infiltration, the organic rating should be used to determine "flow of sewage." The court rejected this assertion: "[A]s a practical matter, once the sewage becomes mixed with the groundwater and storm water, the resulting product is all sewage." Id. Therefore, it concluded, the hydraulic loading correctly was used. 

Finally, the Village argued there was no evidence that the untreated waste load ever reached 10,000 P.E. or more. Therefore, the higher standard should not be applied. The court responded by saying that there are likely to be more frequent fluctuations in "actual sewage flowing into the facility rather than in the total amount of water, since the facility is designed to process only 1.25 million gallons of water per day." Id. at 664. Thus, it concluded, it was more reasonable to use the hydraulic rating. It agreed that "untreated waste load" means total load.

Putting aside any debate over the court's reasoning, it must be remembered that courts generally give deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, provided there is no issue of inconsistency or plain error.

One "lesson" from this case could be the "balancing" that should occur in dealing with excess inflow and infiltration. Is it more cost-effective to try to reduce I/I or to treat the flows at the plant? It also must be borne in mind that high I/I flows have the potential to "wash out" biological processes at a plant, possibly making consistent compliance with effluent or water quality parameters difficult. 

A second question arises as to how the capacity of a plant is to be measured from the standpoint of permitting new customer connections. This is both a regulator and an owner issue. If the plant is to be rated at 12,500 P.E., will connections be allowed up to that level? If actual connections provide less than 100 gallons per day per person, can more connections be permitted? If I/I is reduced, should the permit be modified? Source: February 11, 1999, Water Online, by Daniel J. Kucera.

Also see: Florence Sewage Spills

Area ranchers are worried about the discovery of MTBE, developed in the 1970s to allow fuel to burn cleanly, at the reservoir in Alpine County.

thirteen drinking wells in South Lake Tahoe have been shut down after being contaminated or threatened with contamination. In California, MTBE has contaminated more than 10,000 groundwater sites.

The MTBE comes from leaking gasoline storage tanks in the area. The additive was designed to reduce air pollution, but scientists now suspect it is a carcinogen. It apparently amde its way to the reservoir through South Lake Tahoe's wastewater export system. Source: 2/5/99 Register Guard.

Also see: (Tale of Two Lakes) and

(Oxybusters - fighting MTBE)

The legislation is being introduced at the request of Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations (OCVA), the Department of Land Conservation and Development, a number of elected officials, 1000 Friends of Oregon, the League of Women Voters, and other citizen advocacy groups around Oregon.

SB 330 (LC 798) was prompted primarily by complaints of retaliation in the form of lawsuits - or threats of lawsuits - by development interests against citizens who have spoken out on public policy issues, especially those related to growth. SLAPP suits have also been used as weapons in school curricula, consumer protection, environmental and other public policy debates.

Nine other states have recently passed anti-SLAPP legislation. Citing Indiana’s anti-SLAPP law, Charlotte Robertson of the Hoosier Environmental Council said, “The legislature wisely recognized the threat to our first amendment rights and passed this measure as an emergency act.” Vanderbilt University’s Freedom Forum feels SLAPPs are one of the most serious threats to free speech and an open democratic process.

OCVA provided DLCD with written testimony from dozens of its members documenting what OCVA Chairman Jeff Lamb called “this form of legal and financial terrorism.” Lamb also said, “the purpose of SLAPPs is to silence the public through intimidation and the threat of losing one’s home, business, assets and financial security. Through SB 330, Goal #1 - citizen involvement - is being protected by the very agency chartered to do just that.”

SB 330 (The Citizen Participation In Government Act of 1999) provides that “a person is not civilly liable for any statement made by the person in the course of participating in an administrative, quasi-judicial or legislative proceeding conducted by a public body.” It also provides for the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees” and other expenses. Source: January 15, 1999 News Release from Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations, by Jeff Lamb.

Also see: (SLAPP Suits)