Sisters citizens criticize sewer bill

A group of Sisters-area residents are not happy with federal legislation on Sisters' sewer submitted February 11 by Oregon Senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden.

The pending legislation would convey 240 acres of Forest Service land known as "Section 9" directly to the City of Sisters. Section 9 is the proposed site for the city's wastewater treatment and disposal facility.

Controversy surrounds a section of the bill that would require the Forest Service to sell at least six acres of the Sisters Ranger District administrative site, with the proceeds of the sale to benefit the Sisters watershed.

According to an aide from Senator Wyden's office, the proposal to include the land sale was developed in consultation with local conservation organizations who identified a need to improve the water quality and habitat in Squaw Creek.

Sisters resident Libby Bottero said the coupling of a public land sale with the conveyance of Section 9 "sets a very dangerous precedent."

"This is a completely separate issue from building a wastewater treatment plant on Section 9," Bottero said. "I'm all in favor of fixing up Squaw Creek, but I don't think that's the real reason (for including the land sale)."

Senator Smith's office told The Nugget the land sale was included in the bill to offset the potential benefit to the Sisters Ranger District from the installation of a sewer.

According to Smith's Central Oregon field representative Susan Fitch, the conveyance of Section 9 would allow the city to build the sewer, benefitting the Sisters Ranger District by increasing the land value of the Sisters administrative site and allowing the local Forest Service office to discontinue using 11 septic systems in the city.

The proceeds from the six-acre land sale would then go directly into improving the local watershed, Fitch said, which in turn benefits the public by enhancing natural resources on publicly owned federal land.

"That's a real stretch," Bottero said. "It's a very flimsy, contrived link. It's clear that whoever is going to buy that property is going to make a profit and the taxpayers are going to lose.

"Many people have made proposals over the years to try and get that land from the Forest Service," Bottero continued.

This is not the reason the sale of six acres was included in the legislation, according to others.

Sisters District Ranger Bill Anthony said the Forest Service was not involved in developing the legislation.

"I think some members of the community associate the bill with previous attempts by Bill Reed to acquire 16 acres (of Forest Service land) in the Crown land exchange," Anthony explained. "The Forest Service had nothing to do with crafting that legislation," he said.

"We have had no further discussion with Bill Reed nor further attempts from him to acquire that land since it was dropped from the exchange," Anthony said.

Reed, too, told The Nugget that he was not involved in the legislation.

"The first day I had any knowledge that a land sale was being considered was Wednesday (February 17), the day The Nugget came out," said Reed.

Wyden's office confirmed that Reed's property was never considered in the legislation.

Howard Paine, treasurer of the Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County (ARLU DeCo), also sent a letter to District Ranger Bill Anthony with concerns about the six-acre land sale.

"I don't have any problem with the city getting Section 9," Paine said. "That's just transferring public land to another public agency. It's a win-win situation for everybody, and I have no reservations there. I have concerns about selling off public land."

Bottero, Paine and ARLU DeCo President Bill Boyer met with Anthony Friday, February 19, to discuss the issue.

"I asked Bill Anthony (if) this was another means of the Forest Service accommodating Bill Reed so he can expand his motel," Paine said. "He said that Bill Reed was totally unaware this was occuring and he had nothing to do with it."

Despite the denials from all parties of any "backroom deals," Bottero and Paine still oppose the sale of land from the Forest Service administrative site.

"I don't think it's appropriate for the Forest Service to be involved in these kinds of real estate transactions," said Bottero.

Paine concurred.

"If you start selling off Forest Service land, where does it end?" he said. "Are you going to sell off 5,000 acres of the Deschutes National Forest to put into the Deschutes River?"

Anthony disagrees.

"It's appropriate for us to sell Forest Service land when it's in the benefit of the National Forest and the public using the National Forest," he said. "We can (also) sell land when the benefit to the community outweighs the benefits of the Forest Service in retaining that land."

Wyden's office said the Sisters Ranger District provided technical assistance in the creation of the bill but that the Forest Service's Washington office will not take a position on the bill until a hearing takes place.

The final paragraph of the proposed legislation would allow the Deschutes National Forest to direct land sale proceeds to the Deschutes County Watershed Council (DCWC) in the form of grants for watershed improvement.

The council's Squaw Creek Working Group recently identified improved stream flows in Squaw Creek as their top priority.

The legislation could go directly to the purchase of water rights to achieve this goal, according to Wyden's office.

DCWC Coordinator Barbara Lee favors linking the proceeds of the land sale to the benefit of the Squaw Creek watershed.

"If the sale of federal lands is to occur, then tying those dollars directly to improvement of the natural resource is a positive situation for the community as a whole," she said.

Lee added that the council's board of directors had not yet had an opportunity to discuss formal endorsement of the legislation since its introduction to Congress.

"The Squaw Creek Working Group needs to take a positon on it, and then it will get referred to the council," Lee said.

Working group chair Bob Bridgeford said that, while the group was not responsible for the land deal's inclusion in the legislation, they were supportive of its potential benefit to Squaw Creek.

"We had not lobbied for it but were extremely pleased that the creek would be the beneficiary of the (Forest Service) land sale," said Bridgeford.

"We're at a point where funds are needed to buy water to restore flows (in Squaw Creek) and work on fish barriers and riparian revegetation," he explained. "So we were naturally pleased to see another potential source of funds come along."

Bottero is a member of the Squaw Creek Working Group. Despite this affiliation, she still opposes the land deal.

"The watershed council can apply for something to be put in the Forest Service budget," Bottero said. "If the Forest Service is going to do some riparian restoration it should be a separate appropriation."

Wyden's aide said that if the conservation community does not reach a concensus about selling Forest Service land for the benefit of Squaw Creek and other forest resources, the provision will likely be dropped from the bill.