HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STREAM RESTORATION & SPECIES RECOVERY

 

 

January 22, 2001                                                                                                     Hearing Room E

1:00 P.M.                                                                                                                     Tapes  14 - 15

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:         Rep. Bob Jenson, Chair

Rep. Jan Lee, Vice-Chair

Rep. Randy Leonard Vice-Chair

Rep. Tim Knopp

Rep. Jeff Kruse

Rep. Patti Smith

Rep. Al King

Rep. Carolyn Tomei

Rep. Kelley Wirth

 

STAFF PRESENT:                 Sandy Thiele-Cirka, Administrator

Linda K. Gatto, Administrative Support

 

 

MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:        

                                                Informational Meeting

                                                   Oregon Environmental Council

   Oregon Cattlemen’s Association

   WaterWatch

Public Hearing

    HB 2163

    HB 2236

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 14, A

007

Chair Jenson

Calls the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and opens as a subcommittee.

INFORMATIONAL MEETING

015

Matt Blevins

Legislative Affairs Director, Oregon Environmental Council (OEC). Provides an overview of the OEC. Submits and reads (EXHIBIT A).

036

Chair Jenson

Closes subcommittee and opens full committee.

040

Blevins

Continues testimony.

075

Rep. Kruse

Questions flood plain definition.

079

Blevins

Defines flood plain and explains how testimony relates. Resumes presentation.

098

Chair Jenson

Requests a definition for wild fish.

100

Blevins

Answers that the OEC does not define wild fish.

112

Rep. Kruse

Questions if statistical data is available to prove that the major source of pollution is non-point.

115

Blevins

Responds that he does not have that information, but will provide it to the committee. Continues presentation.

148

Rep. Lee

Questions if there is a range for total maximum daily load (TMDL) levels.

151

Blevins

Answers that he will provide that information for the committee.

154

Rep. Lee

Asks about pollution trading credits.

158

Blevins

Answers that the OEC has looked into this. Notes there are some concerns and that OEC is interested in pursuing it further.

162

Rep. King

Questions if domestic products would be hurt by foreign competition due to pollution fees.

190

Blevins

Answers that the current fee program is not covering the program’s expense.

204

Rep. King

Comments that the OEC suggested that polluters pay for pollution, when it would be the consumers paying the fee.

218

Rep. Kruse

Questions the measurement for salmon recovery.

223

Blevins

Responds that OEC does not have a measurement. Conveys OEC’s support in working with other groups towards recovery.

260

Rep. Wirth

Discusses the Governor’s Task Force on Tax Review. Questions if OEC supports the sunset.

264

Blevins

Answers affirmatively. Contends that there are better ways to spend tax dollars for reducing pollution.

267

Rep. Wirth

Asks Mr. Blevins if he is familiar with reform suggestions.

269

Blevins

Responds somewhat, but he does not have specifics relating to the pollution control tax credit.

273

Chair Jenson

Expresses concern that the plan outlined in Mr. Blevins’s testimony is difficult to assess without definition of terms that would assist in developing a full understanding. Suggests that a Superfund designation of the Willamette River in the Portland area is not entirely due to upstream activity, but rather what is occurring at the actual problem site. Asks if there are any new water rights on the Willamette River.

335

Blevins

Answers that he is not aware of any, but WaterWatch may be able to answer later when they testify.

400

Glen Stonebrink

Executive Director, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA). Submits OCA’s testimony regarding the Oregon Plan (EXHIBIT B). Provides history with the Oregon Plan and notes issues of concern.

TAPE 15, A

007

Stonebrink

Discusses implications of SB 1010 and animal feeding operations (AFO) and confined animal feeding operations (CAFO).

056

Stonebrink

Provides example of rancher who was fined by Environmental Protection Agency without knowing he was in violation of existing law.

112

Rep. King

Asks if there are the same levels of concerns about SB 1010 standards in eastern Oregon as western Oregon.

123

Stonebrink

Answers that concerns are similar throughout the state. Points out differences in temperature standards.

151

Rep. King

Repeats question, if SB 1010 is of equal concern on both sides of the state.

156

Stonebrink

Responds that concerns are just as strong on both sides, even though the specifics details may be different.

183

Rep. Lee

Discusses provisions of SB 1010, expresses concern about making major changes to it. Requests additional SB 1010 clarification.

200

Stonebrink

Clarifies and suggests stakeholder participation in provision implementation and full compliance.

225

Rep. Leonard

Expresses concern about terms and language used relating to land use. Asks about the positive impacts of property rights.

270

Stonebrink

Answers that property rights are very important for the streamside property owners, and notes their level of cooperation. Acknowledges that OCA will support Oregon State University (OSU) scientific research and contends that cattle and salmon can coexist.

349

Rep. Leonard

Requests clarification regarding pesticides.

377

Stonebrink

Responds that the concern is with water quality. Expresses concern about implementing restrictions on chemical use before knowing the cause of the problem.

414

Rep. Jenson

Expresses displeasure about how AFO/CAFO issues have been handled and maintains that the issue will be revisited later.

TAPE 14, B

037

Kimberly Priestly

WaterWatch of Oregon. Submits and presents prepared testimony (EXHIBIT C).

083

Priestly

Concludes and notes that the Oregon Plan is not being fully implemented.

098

Chair Jenson

Asks, how many teachers do you want to spend to do this?

104

Priestly

Answers that it is not a matter of teachers or streams. Argues that the state has the laws and personnel to do more.

108

Chair Jenson

Argues that suggestions outlined in the testimony require funding. Questions whether or not the state can afford to implement them.

116

Doug Myers

WaterWatch of Oregon. Suggests that priorities may need to be rearranged to provide funding.

121

Chair Jenson

Agrees that there is work to be done to arrive at a solution.

138

Rep. Tomei

Questions water measurement.

141

Priestly

Answers that Department of Water Resources has authority to require the measurement of water use. Suggests that it is a common sense management tool. Notes that the state can improve how much water people are using under their current water rights. Argues that it is also an educational tool since users who measure water will be more aware of their usage.

156

Rep. Tomei

Questions the reasons for opposition.

160

Priestly

Responds that the reluctance is primarily funding.

167

Myers

Adds that there is already measurement going on, but it is important for management to know how much water is being used.

176

Rep. Kruse

Asks what the water measurement is used for. Suggests that if state wants to know how much water is being used, they should be responsible for the monitors.

196

Rep. Jenson

Comments on the effectiveness of irrigators in his district.

215

Myers

Concurs that Oregon farmers are very efficient with their water use.

226

Rep. Kruse

Expresses concerns regarding the lack of evaluating the entire system.

236

Myers

Urges members to read report submitted by WaterWatch to provide a sense of the water issue.

255

Rep. Wirth

Asks what the short and long term benefits of the data.

261

Priestly

Answers that in the short term benefit is educational and the long term benefit is the information will may result in an improvement in managing the system.

272

Rep. Wirth

Asks if report determines who is using water efficiently and how they accomplished it.

276

Priestly

Responds that it would ensure that users are using an amount of water that is within their right. Notes that this would allow staff greater ability to implement other measures.

289

Rep. Wirth

Asks if there is currently adequate staff to conduct inspections.

291

Priestly

Responds no.

288

Chair Jenson

Closes informational meeting and opens public hearing on HB 2163.

PUBLIC HEARING - HB 2163

325

Ted Lorenson

Forest Practices Program Director, Oregon Department of Forestry (DOF). Submits and presents testimony in support of HB 2163 (EXHIBIT D).

363

Rep. King

Requests clarification of type 2 and 3 units.

368

Lorenson

Answers that they are designations in terms of types of harvest where specific management practices are prescribed.

381

Rep. King

Requests additional clarification.

401

Lorenson

Answers that it is based on the number of trees retained, size of trees, and how much regeneration already exists.

413

Lorenson

Offers further clarification about specifics of unit types.

426

Rep. Lee

Asks who was on Forest Practices Advisory Committee and if the proposal received consensus.

433

Lorenson

Responds with composition of membership. States that there was strong agreement, but not consensus.

TAPE 15, B

025

Ray Wilkeson

Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC). Testifies in support of

HB 2163. Discusses provisions of the Oregon Plan.

057

Rep. Kruse

Asks if OFIC supports the amendments.

060

Wilkeson

Answers affirmatively.

066

Rep. King

Questions if HB 2163 is a landslide enhancement or landslide prevention measure.

070

Wilkeson

Clarifies that they have discovered that landslides are not necessarily a negative event.

076

Chair Jenson

Closes public hearing on HB 2163. Opens public hearing on HB 2236.

PUBLIC HEARING - HB 2236

084

Mike Burton

Assistant Director, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. Points out that there is an error in the relating clause.

101

Chair Jenson

Confirms that there is an error, which will be corrected before the bill moves on.

114

Burton

Reviews and explains the feasibility study proposal for the Columbia River Estuary. States support for HB 2236 as amended.

145

Keith Leavitt

Port of Portland. Explains that legislation is an outgrowth of the Lower Columbia River estuary program that resulted in a management plan. Points out that recently there has been more activity around the estuaries. Discusses government’s role in restoration.

183

Rep. Leonard

Questions the lottery bonds repayment.

188

Burton

Answers that the lottery bonds will be paid by lottery proceeds.

215

Rep. Leonard

Asks if that is money that would also be available for K-12 education.

224

Burton

Responds that governor wants to see programs that will last as long as the bonds and therefore would support projects like restoration and infrastructure development.

229

Rep. Leonard

Asks if it would be appropriate to use money for something else such as education or infrastructure.

234

Burton

Answers that lottery proceeds are eligible to be used for economic development and education.

239

Rep. Leonard

Questions what portion of the $45 million in current statute is dedicated to this project.

243

Burton

Answers that the money is a portion of lottery bonds sold this biennium with a small amount remaining to be sold. The money was allocated to the department for infrastructure investments.

248

Rep. Leonard

Asks how much money is going to the project.

250

Burton

Answers that it is about $750,000.

252

Rep. Leonard

Clarifies if the legislation refers to the channel-deepening project.

245

Burton

Answers that HB 2236 is essentially an amendment to existing statute.

249

Rep. Leonard

Asks why the state is paying for the project instead of the affected ports along the Columbia River, which includes the Port of Portland.

253

Burton

Answers that in situations such as this, the state generally steps in to provide funding.

258

Rep. Leonard

Questions if the ports would pay for the project if the state does not provide funding.

263

Leavitt

Answers that if the state does not provide funding the project probably would not happen. Further explains the estuary program.

267

Rep. Leonard

Questions estuary creation.

272

Leavitt

Answers that project would provide answers.

286

Rep. Kruse

Asks if the State of Washington has committed any funds.

288

Burton

Answers no.

300

Chair Jenson

Asks if there is any expectation that Washington will be involved.

303

Burton

Answers affirmatively.

308

Chair Jenson

Asks what happens if they are not involved.

310

Burton

Answers that without their support, the program will not move forward.

314

Chair Jenson

Closes public hearing on HB 2236. Adjourns meeting at 2:45 p.m..

 

Submitted By,                                                                           Reviewed By,

 

 

 

Linda Gatto,                                                                             Sandy Thiele-Cirka,

Administrative Support                                                             Administrator

 

Transcribed By,

 

 

 

Michael Reiley,

Administrative Support

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – Restoring the Willamette River, A Citizens’ Plan, Mike Blevins, 5 pp

B – Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, written testimony, Glen Stonebrink, 7 pp

C – WaterWatch, written testimony, Kimberly Priestly, 13 pp

D – HB 2163, written testimony, Ted Lorenson, 37 pp