Guest Opinion: Good News for Groundwater and the Environment
By Yancy Lind
Since 1955 the Oregon Water Resources Department has had a legal requirement to approve new groundwater permits only where there are "reasonably stable" groundwater levels. Unfortunately, this was never defined and few steps were taken to measure or otherwise obtain data that would inform water managers. Accordingly, it has been standard practice for OWRD to routinely approve new permits. Fortunately, the OWRD Commission recently voted to adhere to this 69-year-old requirement, which is good news for recreation, fish, wildlife and domestic wells.
Drought and overuse have created serious problems in Central Oregon. Domestic wells have gone dry, springs have diminished, rivers and lakes are lower and the environment has suffered. Reducing future groundwater declines benefits all of us. Nevertheless, local agriculture, industry, and cities mounted vigorous campaigns in opposition to OWRD following its mandate.
In their quest for growth, local cities were the forefront of this opposition. The Central Oregon Cities Organization released a whitepaper stating the needs of cities should supersede the needs of the environment and domestic well owners. The mayors of Bend and Redmond both testified to the OWRD Commission that their desire for growth should allow for greater access to water regardless of groundwater declines.
My view is that the rule is a welcome step in the right direction but is insufficient. Permits for more water will be denied in areas without stable groundwater levels, but the causes will not be addressed. Current overallocation of the resource will not be addressed. Declining aquifer recharge due to global warming will not be addressed.
We live in Central Oregon for the outdoor lifestyle, which is predicated on abundant groundwater for forests, plants, fish and wildlife. A truly stable aquifer needs aggressive conservation, less pumping and more recharging. Many cities in arid climates in other states have taken steps to dramatically curtail water use for landscaping. Outside of cities, domestic wells in Oregon are legally allowed to pump 15,000 gallons a day at no charge, but there's no metering or monitoring of these wells and actual usage is unknown.
In other states, techniques like water transfers, re-use, aquifer recharge and charging for irrigation water to encourage conservation are being used. The overwhelming majority of local water use is by irrigation districts. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, most of these irrigators are not farmers (defined to mean irrigators with revenues over $1,000). In many states water rights have been purchased from these hobby farmers by cities. That water is then treated for municipal use or injected into the ground for aquifer recharge. This is one of many strategies that could be pursued.
Current Oregon water law prohibits some of these ideas. Local cities should turn their focus away from lobbying against environmentally friendly water policy and toward legislation that will allow them to pursue their quest for growth while maintaining the quality of life that makes Central Oregon desirable.
— Yancy Lind lives in Tumalo and blogs about water and fish at coinformedangler.org.
RE: A Joint Effort to Appeal Bend's Tree Code. News, 8/29
I'm actually a bit gob smacked that the "developers" have come out in a seemingly coordinated manner against this ordinance, and only to complain about "added costs."
As a prior commenter stated, all they'll do in the end is pass on any costs to buyers. It's the nature of the process: builders build and buyers buy, compensating the builders for the cost plus some profit margin necessary for the builders to stay in business.
Is there a buyer's strike in Bend? Doesn't seem so to me.
On the other hand, how many of us have driven down 8th between the Butler Market circle and Revere? Note the recently bulldozed area west of 8th? Is that bare enough for the developers? To the rest of us it's already an eyesore, and evidence in plain sight of the need for exactly this type of ordinance.
Personally, I'd rather that there wasn't an "out" to offset tree removal via a fee in lieu of preservation. The ordinance doesn't call for all or even most of the trees remain; it calls for *some* of the trees to be preserved. How is preservation respected when it can be bought off for some fee?
And to The Source, could you add a follow-up that gives a better sense of the nuts and bolts of this issue/ordinance? What does the ordinance actually call for? Is it objective, or are there subjective components? What are the options for replanting that offset taking large, old, mature trees? What are the fees imposed, and how are they calculated?
—Jeff Perrault via bendsource.com
Letter of
the Week:
Jeff: More to come on the tree code! Come on by for your gift card to Palate.
—Nicole Vulcan