Metolius hearing breeds debate

The public hearing on SB 30, a bill that would prohibit destination resort development near the Metolius River was over in a couple of hours - but the debate is just beginning.

It would be fair to say that no one went away from the hearing last Thursday entirely satisfied with the results, including Senator Ben Westlund, the Democratic Senator from Tumalo and sponsor of the bill. He has support from those who want to see development restricted, strong argument from those who feel the bill is poorly conceived and some who want even greater restrictions.

However, a compromise could be in the wind.

"I do think that there is a chance for a reasonable compromise. At the end of her presentation, Senator (Becky) Johnson said that she would not be opposed to some changes that would allow for a more ecologically friendly development," said Shane Lundgren, president of Dutch Pacific Resources whose proposed low impact development would be stopped by SB 30.

Among the opponents are those who see adverse economic effects both at a personal and a county level, believing SB 30 unreasonably usurps the county's authority. There is a group of opponents who do not believe the bill goes far enough.

"As the old saying goes, it was sausage making," said Lundgren. "We spent 14 months going through the same thing with the county and you can't expect to come to any solution in a two-hour meeting. It was actually pretty much what I expected."

Ponderosa Land and Cattle Co. has the most to lose should SB 30 pass. The developer owns approximately 30,000 acres in the impacted area; however, only 10,000 are zoned for a destination resort, an area which is just under eight times the size of Black Butte Ranch and would be "the largest destination resort ever proposed in the State of Oregon," said Senator Westlund.

"Our location would only impact the Deschutes River Basin according to the State of Oregon," said Rick Allen, former mayor of Madras and currently registered as a lobbyist to represent Ponderosa Land and Cattle Co. "We are not even in the same watershed as the Metolius. The way it (SB 30) is written the city of Culver falls within the development boundary.

"If there is a problem with too many people accessing the basin, then that should be addressed. But the way this SB 30 is written, people can stay in Deschutes County destination resorts and come to the Metolius, but Jefferson County is prohibited from having the same thing," said Allen.

Dick Kellogg, a board member of Friends of the Metolius, is concerned about the basin and believes that it is worth protecting. As it stands he is not interested in any compromises in the language of the bill.

However, he did state, "I would not say that I am personally opposed to a low-impact and environmentally-sensitive development like Lundgren is proposing.

"The problem is, we don't know what it is that they (Lundgren) really plan to do. It sounds OK, but there is nothing that guarantees what they will do if they get approval to build. It's like a pig in a poke. They really haven't set anything out that is firm. What will be the density? What are they really going to do for the area? It is all a little nebulous," said Kellogg.

There were far more in attendance whose voices remained unheard than those who spoke. There are hints that there could be another hearing, according to Kellogg.

He said, "It was pretty much those that were opposed to the bill that had the opportunity to speak out. Many of the supporters did not have a chance to speak."

Some feel that SB 30 does not go far enough to protect the sensitive streams. Tom Davis, a Sisters resident and representative of the Native Fish Society, points out: "We have a history of damaging watersheds. Then, we will pay a fortune to restore them. Look at what is happening on Whychus Creek. It is going to cost many millions of dollars to restore it. It would have been better to have not created the problem in the first place."

Davis was unable to attend the hearing but had provided his written input: "(Considering) the exceptional quality and diversity of landscapes, vegetation and cultural activities, a compelling argument can be made that Whychus will be a treasure that rivals the Metolius. SB 30 is already a compromise but one that deserves passage. It should be expanded to include Whychus if solutions are 'on the table' for consideration."

A deadline of April 26 was set to pass the bill out committee.