2011-116-Minutes for Meeting March 09,2011 Recorded 4/11/2011Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also
present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County
Administrator; George Read, Terri Payne, Todd Cleveland and Nick Lelack,
Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel, via conference call;
and approximately sixty other citizens, including media representative Hillary
Borrud of the Bulletin.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Review and Discussion of Ordinance No. 2008-019 (established procedures
under Oregon Rule to minimize groundwater pollution in South Deschutes
County).
Tom Anderson and Todd Cleveland gave an overview of the item, which has
been discussed at length over the past two years. Mr. Anderson had prepared
background information via a staff report including some history, which he
referenced at this time.
There are three options: rescind the Ordinance; suspend the Ordinance for a
period of time; or leave things as they are. If the Ordinance is rescinded or
suspended, the State rules do not change under Section 130, which precludes
his department from permitting any septic system that is likely to have a
negative environmental effect. If the process stays the same and someone does
not agree, they would appeal to the DEQ.
Commissioner Unger said, to restate the issue, that the County, working for the
State, may require a nitrate reducing system, so the property owner could
appeal to the State. The State can decide at that point what might be allowable.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 1 of 11 Pages
Commissioner DeBone stated he talked to Mr. Allen of the DEQ today, and he
referred to the requirement not to pollute the groundwater. That is where they
start. The County would evaluate the property and lean towards a nitrogen
reducing system. He sent out a statement today asking for a step back, and
asking DEQ for more direction. There is a citizen group meeting with the DEQ
and they want to come up with a solution. He wants to be sure the rivers are
kept safe, but he is not sure this is the way to do it, through this Ordinance.
Mr. Anderson had prepared a chart showing the options and values associated
with each potential solution, which he reviewed at this time. He noted that
most people in the room would support a repeal. It is important to treat all
people the same. A change in the Ordinance may result in inconsistencies in
how properties were evaluated over the past couple of years. Compromise is
important in order to work with other agencies and community groups to find a
middle ground. The environment needs to be protected, both the rivers and the
ground. The most protective option is to require the most stringent rules for all.
The highest degree of nitrate reduction would therefore protect the environment
more, not considering the cost.
There is ongoing litigation over the County's enforcement of the Ordinance.
This takes time and money.
The appeal authority if rescinded will be with the DEQ. Saving money for
property owners and public agencies needs to be considered. It may take some
time for the DEQ and advisory committee to come up with solutions on how to
protect the groundwater. If no measures are in place in the interim, that could
be a lost opportunity to protect the environment.
Mr. Anderson gave an overview of the consequences of the three options.
Commissioner DeBone said that the high-level goal is protection of the
environment. Sewering may work in some areas but not all, and it would not be
inexpensive. The committee thought the water is migrating differently. Some
areas may not be affected while others might be. This would be a goal that
needs as few obstacles as possible.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 2 of I I Pages
Commissioner Unger said all of the ranking standards are important.
Suspending the Ordinance may help towards community goodwill and
preserving funding. The County did its best to look at the State's rules. He
understands that the science said there is a problem in the whole study area and
the public needs guidance on what to do next. The Ordinance tells the public
how the State rules are to be enforced. The County has done what it could, but
has passed it to the DEQ to really look at the situation and to move forward
with some solutions. The ability to sewer outside of UGB or cluster systems
were not something the DEQ wanted to accept at the time. They seem more
open to working through these now.
His biggest concern is the river being more reactive than the groundwater. The
river will react more quickly and problems will show up there first. The lots
along the rivers are the biggest problem. The groundwater does migrate to the
rivers. If the rule was suspended, perhaps the DEQ could decide how to handle
this; and also may allow for other options to be examined for sewering or other
possibilities. There will be a financial impact with sewering as well.
Things have changed a little bit, but how it has changed is not known entirely.
The DEQ needs some time to figure it out. He supports suspending it for six
months.
He asked how many applications for sewer permits have come in. Todd
Cleveland said that there have been maybe 50 or 60 the past year. Thirty-six
were retrofits for failed systems, and they obtained rebates to help with the cost
of the new systems.
Chair Baney stated that fourteen years were allowed to work on Goal 11 and for
the DEQ to buy into changes, since the County is an agent of the State. All of
the future potential problems with water quality are not known. Long-term
solutions are needed as well as short-term. She keeps coming back to this being
repealed, but that does not change anything on the ground. A whole lot will not
change if the Ordinance is repealed. The County is an agent of the State and
State rules would still have to be followed.
She would like to see residents not having the added costs of appealing to the
DEQ. If site evaluations have to take place, she would like to work in unison
with the DEQ at that time. Both agencies should be present.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 3 of 11 Pages
Mr. Cleveland said he is the only staff person and there are 700 or 800 permits a
year, and he has to work over the entire County. It would be hard to coordinate
this particular aspect with the DEQ and could result in delays for citizens.
Chair Baney said there would be added costs to appeal to the DEQ if the
Ordinance is suspended or repealed. She would like to see a better process
without added fees. She would also like have some kind of a notification since
a standard system may not be good forever. The DEQ dictates the systems that
are used. The DEQ along with USGS decided on what needed to be treated and
to what level. The DEQ's stake in this needs to be less of a monopoly. Not
everyone would be able to be hooked up to a sewer, and it will be expensive
anyway. It is a huge issue, but she does not want the community to think it can
go back the way it was.
Commissioner DeBone thinks it is about an $8,000 add-on to have a nitrate
reducing system. He wants to see the Ordinance repealed to go to a new
beginning. The reality is there is a measurable loading problem, but the
committee and the DEQ need to agree upon some solutions. There is no way
that anyone can justify a standard system in a flood plain.
Chair Baney said that she does not support suspending this, because she thinks
no matter what the County does, the process will be the same. State rules have
to be followed. Commissioner Unger stated that suspending would maybe have
the DEQ show what their next step is. This would give them a time to show
how they plan to handle the process. The challenge is that the DEQ is not
giving specific answers on how to work out the problems with this issue.
Commissioner DeBone asked what the Ordinance provides. Chair Baney
makes the role of the County and the DEQ clearer, but she feels the same
process is to be followed whether it is in place at all. Not having the Ordinance
could add costs to the property owner because DEQ will add an appeal fee.
Commissioner DeBone said the map is well studied. If the professional opinion
is that a nitrate-reducing system is important, people can appeal. There is a cost
to appeal but some may not find it necessary. He does not think this cost is a
heavy burden.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 4 of 1 I Pages
Commissioner Unger stated the Ordinance seems to say that the County
believes per the USGS report that there is a nitrate issue, and adding more is an
problem that needs to be addressed. If you look at the geology, there is an issue
in the whole study area. The DEQ worked with the USGS on this study.
Chair Baney said that the process is the same whether there is an Ordinance.
What happens if someone comes in the door and wants to put in a system? The
public waterways have to be protected and a certain standard of treatment is
required by the DEQ. Since then it has been confusing and costly to defend
this, when it actually will remain the same with or without the Ordinance. She
feels that this should be repealed, and it would be important to state that there is
a risk involved and additional costs for a DEQ appeal. The same process would
apply, including site evaluation.
Commissioner DeBone would like to start a new conversation with the DEQ.
Commissioner Unger would like to see this as a next step. Chair Baney could
recommend that they do not charge an appeal fee, but it is set by the State.
Mr. Anderson stated that if the Ordinance had not been adopted, the appeal
structure was the same. The Ordinance saves the cost of appeals to the DEQ.
The DEQ would expect to get their fee to pay for their costs. If appeals come in
that are upheld or overturned, they set precedence. If the DEQ seems to be
landing in a certain spot on specific areas, it will be easier to determine how it
might go. Over time there may be fewer appeals.
Chair Baney said that she is proud of staff. The County has tried again and
again to try to get direction from the DEQ. She hopes this can happen and
soon. She has been naive in thinking that they would step up and clarify their
opinions.
Commissioner DeBone does not feel there has been any real wrongdoing, as it
was based on what was available. He supports the work staff has done. This is
not unique to this area. Density is a driver in how things need to happen.
Chair Baney stated that this is a basin issue, and does not involve the entire
County. She would like to make sure that proper disclosures are provided to
potential property buyers in that area, with the associated costs.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 5 of 11 Pages
Mr. Cleveland said the DEQ appeal costs vary from $600 to over $2,000,
depending on the appeal and variance requested. Mr. Anderson said they would
work with DEQ as best they can and will try to head off an appeal or conflict.
Chair Baney would like to see a way to get around part of this.
The Commissioners asked that staff move forward to prepare the proper
documents to repeal Ordinance No. 2008-019.
2. Comprehensive Plan Review & Update.
Terri Payne clarified that at the last work session, she had explained that there
are minimum lot sizes than in other parts of the State, but this does not include
unirrigated land, which has to meet State standards.
Under energy resources, Goal 13, she said that this has to do with conserving
conventional resources such as oil. It is an energy drain to have subdivisions
too far out. Alternative energy is also a part of this, such as geothermal, wind
and solar. Some people are concerned about the impacts of alternative energy.
Section 2.8.1 is another place where the County could set an example in
conservation. Section 2.8.15 looks at the passive solar code, with a complicated
formula, but there are some fixes that might make this work better.
Chair Baney asked how specific this should be. Ms. Payne stated that
ultimately it is a policy decision. There are many policies in the existing plan
that should be removed. Chair Baney would like to be able to encourage
support of certain things. Ms. Payne stated that some nonprofits or other
agencies are applying for grants and it helps to have the support of the local
governments.
Environmental quality is based on Goal 6, to manage land to keep it safe. The
only air quality issues questioned had to do with mining and burning, which are
handled through other agencies.
There were a lot of comments on noxious weed control. Green or sustainable
design of buildings is a big thing, and recycling talks about County facilities.
The Planning Commission made recommendations a couple of years ago to the
Board of Commissioners regarding recycling in buildings.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 6 of 11 Pages
Commissioner Unger stated that the City of Bend had some air shed issues. He
asked how the County can work with the cities on these issues. Ms. Payne said
that the Bend 2030 Plan includes a lot of content on air quality. Urban areas
have much different air quality issues than rural areas.
Laurie Craghead asked about the woodstove issues. Commissioner Unger said
that the cities have had air quality issues to deal with, much of which results
from the use of woodstoves. Ms. Craghead stated that the County has an
Ordinance regarding woodstove requirements.
Dave Kanner asked how similar the language in Goal 3 is to the comp plan
update regarding recycling. Ms. Payne said they head the same direction.
There was little public interest in surface mining changes. Policy 2.10.3 will
look at a few things such as imported materials. Commissioner Unger feels that
the DOGAMI standards apply.
Mr. Lelack said that Vice Chair Brown is very interested in how to develop a
plan around surface mining. Ms. Payne said that the use of many of the
locations pre-date land use laws.
George Read stated that the definition of mining varies. It was a big deal when
it was developed years ago. Commissioner Unger said that the plan to handle
this type of land is just not there.
Ms. Craghead noted that the Latham case is about to come back on appeal as
well.
Ms. Payne said regarding the Historic Landmarks Commission, there is support
but not many changes. Mr. Kanner asked if a contract could be drafted with the
cities to handle situations as they arise. Mr. Lelack said the County does not
have a Landmarks Commission. The cities may seek grants regarding
properties that are in the urban reserve, which are technically within the
County.
Chapter 5 has no goals or policies, but there are some specific recommendations
for amendments. No quasi-judicial or property-specific changes will be part of
the plan.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 7 of 11 Pages
All of the definitions that were in zoning code have the same meaning as in the
comprehensive plan. In addition, agri-tourism is defined as being in
conjunction with farm use or is used to supplement farm use.
Wildlife inventory has been updated and should be revised. Section 5.5 has to
do with landscape management, areas of special concern and so on. Those are
generally public lands. Hydroelectric is prohibited in some areas. Section 5.7
has to do with wilderness, usually managed by federal or state agencies.
Surface mining inventory lists some that are considered non-significant. A
court case challenged the law and those can now be listed as significant. This
would be part of the Goal 5 review. Wording on cultural and historic issues
was felt to be archaic, and was updated with the help of the Historic Landmarks
Commission. There was a request to amend this list to include the Tumalo
diversion dam, and this was incorporated.
Mr. Lelack stated that they have been asked to add all national registered lands
to the list. Mr. Kanner asked about table 5.39. He said that there are a few that
he is familiar with that are not shown.
The preamble was initiated by the Planning Commission, which is behind the
table of contents in Chapter 1. Ms. Payne tried to incorporate their comments
where appropriate.
A staff report will be generated at least a week before the first public hearing on
the comprehensive plan update. A copy of the comprehensive plan will be
available for review. People can bring a laptop and refer to the document
electronically as well.
The meetings are being put in local papers as display ads, as well as getting
some radio or television time. Some radio interviews have taken place. A press
release is also planned, and an e-mail went out to interested parties. All groups
that have an interest in land use are getting information on this. It can also be
copied off the County website.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 8 of 11 Pages
3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
Commissioner Unger is taking part in a Deschutes Water Alliance presentation
tonight in La Pine.
He will be in Salem on Friday, and his name is being forwarded regarding an
appointment to the Oregon Workforce Investment Board by the Oregon
Association of Counties.
Commissioner DeBone went to Salem to support SB 83, and met briefly with
Representatives Conger and Whisnant.
Chair Baney stated that she was not able to get into the Supreme Court
proceedings in Washington, DC. There was a huge waiting line and a small
seating area.
She attended NACo legislative visits and separate visits with legislators
Merkley, Wyden, Wu, and DeFazio and/or their staff to talk about secure rural
schools funding and environmental issues.
The nationwide campaign for secure rural schools is coming apart. There are
749 counties involved. Representative Walden said there needs to be offsets, so
she is not sure how this is going to develop. NACo may need to take a larger
leadership role.
She and others will meet in the next few weeks to determine what this looks
like.
She also attended a session on redistricting, which was very interesting.
4. Other Items.
Chair Baney asked about the request for public records relating to the Marla
Rae contract, which is a separate issue from the Grand Jury case. Mr. Kanner
explained that Ms. Rae, a consultant, did an evaluation of the District
Attorney's office some years ago. Her twelve-page report has been released to
the Bulletin, but a request to the District Attorney for notes and backup material
was made by the Bulletin as well. The District Attorney has had this request for
about a week but has not yet responded.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 9 of 11 Pages
BANEY: The Board of Commissioners directs County Counsel to release the
Marla Rae report and pertinent notes and backup materials to the
Bend Bulletin as requested, with redactions as necessary.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Inclusion of Properties
Other than those Zoned EFU in the Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Program.
This item was continued from the morning business meeting.
Erik Kropp said he spoke with Scot Langton regarding whether some road
districts would be affected by this program, and the reply was that it affects all
taxing districts.
Under the current program, only EFU land is eligible. This would expand the
program to properties that are zoned forest land, for those who apply for the
program and are subsequently approved by the ODF&W. Therefore, the impact
of the change is unknown.
Commissioner DeBone said that there is the possibility in the future to change
this program if there are unintended consequences, an inability of the ODF&W
to administer the program, or other problems. Commissioner Unger said that
the ODF&W wants to keep a quality program and does not want to overextend
what can be done.
Chair Baney closed the hearing at this time.
Staff was directed to develop an appropriate resolution.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page 10 of 11 Pages
U
DATED this Day of ::2~j 2011 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Tammy Baney, Chair
Z~OOW4--
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
~Vj,, U1143~,"-
Alan Unger, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session
Page 11 of 11 Pages
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011
1. Review and Discussion of Ordinance No. 2008-019 (established procedures
under Oregon Rule to minimize groundwater pollution in South Deschutes
County) - Tom Anderson
2. Comprehensive Plan Review & Update - Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Terri
Payne
3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
4. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
o+
t
L
N
L
c
c
M N
c
c
E
4
~
1
\
R
s
t
C
~c
L
ro
co
o
q
v
CL
o+
~
3
co
L
y
~
~
~
M
~
d
Q>
V'
1
6
h
.may
1
llfVVl
O
~
M
m
'n
1
~
~
~
~
\
N~
~
~
,
~
!
~
CCU
Cam.
qj\
=iY
cc
N
v
J
Q
o
i
C
61
v
C~
1
2
_ J
l
C"
IZ
A
a
L
i
~
p
L
+
~ C1
N
c
•t
p
~
C
c
E
I
T
CJ
C
O
'
~
ff%
t
a
~
-
~
n
N
I
ti
S
'
~
VI
~
J
L
C
'T
C
4
INI
N
O
v
a
o
z
o
~o
a
Community Development Department
! ( Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 9, 2011
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM Tom Anderson, Director
SUBJECT: Discussion of Ordinance 2008-019
Background:
Ordinance 2008-019 was adopted by the Board of Commissioners in June, 2008. It was based
on several scientific studies undertaken by the USGS and DEQ, and was designed to help
protect area drinking water and rivers from the long term effects of nitrate pollution associated
with area septic systems. At the time it appeared that adoption of the Local Rule, an overall plan
to protect groundwater and rivers, could be significantly delayed. Ordinance 2008-019 was
intended to capture opportunities in the interim for the installation of nitrogen reducing septic
systems, by focusing on instances where septic work was going to be done anyway. Such
instances include: new construction; septic upgrades associated with a home expansion; and
septic system failure that requires replacement. Ordinance 2008-019 formally requires that
property owners install, or upgrade to, nitrogen reducing septic systems in those instances.
Based on the scientific studies, which state that all systems essentially contribute to
groundwater/river contamination to varying degrees, it is the belief of staff that nitrogen reducing
systems would be required in those instances anyway, as state rules prohibit the County from
approving systems which it believes will pollute the public waters of the state.
In spring, 2009, following repeal of the Local Rule, the Board considered whether to also repeal
Ordinance 2008-019, but decided at that time not to. Since then, the South County Citizen's
Action Group has sued the County with respect to the ordinance, and that litigation continues.
The Board has indicated to staff that it would once again like to consider the status of the
ordinance.
Discussion Points:
The Board can repeal the ordinance, suspend it, or elect to leave it in place. At the meeting on
March 9th, staff will present the Board with an exercise designed to identify and prioritize key
values generally associated with those choices. The intent is that the consequences resulting
from each possible option, both positive and negative, are explored. The Board may also
choose to continue the discussion in a noticed public hearing.
Requested Board Action:
Conduct the exercise, hold further discussion, and direct staff to:
1. Prepare an agenda item and associated documents required to repeal the ordinance,
2. Prepare an agenda item and associated documents required to suspend the ordinance,
3. Continue the discussion to a public hearing, or
4. Direct that the ordinance be left in place at this time.
W
F~-
a
Z
0
z
0
v
x
O
00
r-I
M
OC
W
J
in
W
Q
V
O
Q
W
Y
~ V
cy O
i L.
uJ =1 a
~ p O
N cr
E (1) W
a > p
a" V ,cv ba
N L
O
E W m a
= O p
O
0. C O N
0 c~ •-E
M C M
E 4- M =1 Low
O O am ~ O to
~
aaa' .~.r V V O
= t V i
aw -W
E e(A
.w as-+ O
OWNER
O O
_ M i
V V Q a ui a a.
N
V ~
_m _
OC a
ca
W =
olool
W > N
M
D N
O
Z Q
D > N_
O 0 O
L
W 0•
V I- 0
~ V
Q a~ O
a-+
Z O -
N cn a
t/1
0
Q -
V -
•3
-a
= ui O
V
V
O
~ N
N
s E
o ~ CL ~a
a~ CL o cr
.O E Q a
0
ow c
W ° O Cr •
s o L
O
Low C
3
a uJ a > EMEND
= N
a~
O
L
4a r
tw 3 0
O N
J V ~
~ > u
L
w a
N
V N
~ L
LL
W
QN a~~
W N
D O
O ~ J V
Z Q
M > •N
O o 0-
W Q
L7 0
~ V
a O
>m _
I- V
Z O -
CA ~Q
O
Q -
V -
-a
= W °
F ~ld
O
E
V
V
O
m N
N
E V
N 0
~ L
~ a
= a~ Q o cr
° E Q a o
° ° Cr r
a ui a > O
= N
a~
= i
O N
~ ~ GC
G> > V
L
w o.
W
Q
0
Z
0
z
0
v
x
FM
O
co
i
r4
m
CC
(/'1
W
J
D
W
a
U
O
H
a
W
Y
~ V
c V O
L
W a
~ o 0
N cr
E • a) W
r > oc o
O V •c~ b~0
-
O
E uj 00 0.
O o
O s O N E
O M = M
E M Lm
>O O O w
u CL U 1.
o o Q au a
0 E
E'
E
O O a m i
u V Q a ui a s
March 8, 2011
In 1932 Herbert J Taylor came up with an "ethical yardstick" to help his bankrupt company find
it's way during the great depression. He reasoned that all the employees and people associated
with his company needed to be morally and ethically strong. He wrote the Four Way Test and his
company Club Aluminum pulled itself out of the red within 5 years.
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
These questions have been adopted by Rotary International and are read at every Rotary meeting
around the world on a weekly basis. I think these words will help all of us find a new beginning
to the groundwater protection issues we face today in rural areas of Deschutes County.
Since 1982 the south county ground water has been studied, a lot of money has been spent and
decisions have been made towards the solution. Deschutes County Ordinance 2008-19 requires
DEQ certified Advanced Treatment Technology (ATT) systems for all new construction in
certain townships (Southern Deschutes County). There was an associated Ordinance requiring
that all systems needed to be upgraded within 14 years that was voted in by the Commissioners
and then repealed by the people across the county.
On March 9th, 2011 at the commissioner's regularly scheduled work session I will asking the
other commissioners to support me in repealing the 2008-19 ordinance and the blanket
requirement for nitrogen reducing wastewater treatment systems in south Deschutes County. I
think that standard systems/sand filters need to be an option now in areas that may have sewer in
the future. My opinion is that we need to confirm our support for private property rights and
implement best practices that manage our impact on the environment. The high priority driver
for a solution is protecting the rivers in the area from un-natural nitrate loading.
The DEQ citizen's group advisory committee is meeting monthly on the subject researching the
"Truth" of the situation and will suggest what is "Fair" for all concerned. We can all work
together to build "Goodwill and Better Friendships" as a community. The outcome of our work
to put together a long term groundwater protection plan for rural Deschutes County will be
"Beneficial to all concerned".
All new solutions will add cost to us living in rural county. Today, standard septic systems do
not need more than pumping and inspection every few years. My vision is a mix of sewers in
relatively dense areas, cluster systems for some remote neighborhoods and stand alone ATT
systems for stand alone homes on larger properties. I know that providing clear groundwater
protection solutions for the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County will offer us all a great
place to live work and play for generations to come.
Anthony DeBone
Deschutes County Commissioner
541 728-3012
tonyd@deschutes.org
Y
O
m
C
O
m
03
U
cd
O
U
U
4]
`V
CIS
In
O
Cd
cn
~
cn
a)
.
U
~
Ed
N
U U
N
N
O
C's
Q O
O
bA
.
p
O
O
s,•, r
_
rn
Xi ~
a) 0
cd
06
C)
O bA
p
4]
0
04
~~v
33
~C)
0
7:$
CM
03
rl:~ O
OU N
.D
06
rA
•
C,3
O
O 03
(U 04
W
U) 06
c)
C)
L
rn
v
r
n
O 4]
O
cd
cd
$U,
00
O
,
M
I-- 70-0
0
;3
O
07S
Q]
bA 'd
Cl) c a) N a
O
y U
y
O `n N
O
O O
2 m O
0
~
1-2
"d O
U
bA
03
O
•
C;3 V)
o a'
'n
O
O
C
O
N
c~
O
S",
C4:;
S U
cn
•p
5
O O
•
O O O
N
vii
~
N N_ O
~
~ ~ ~
w
O
O
cd O
O O
CH
~d0~
O
0 00
LL c) F U)
N s,
f-~ 2
v~
N
p.
Cr*)
1-4
O
00
O
O
N
~
4]
U
O
~
bA
r
O
4]
Cd
N
~
O
C]
,fl
v~
O
cd
En
U
_U
W
Q
Z
ri
O
p
a
Y
m
C
O
m
o
?
l
rn
V
O
p
En
j
En
N
. '
N y
4.1
O
O
s0
O
0
N
cl
a3
0
O
O
O
y N
to 4
to 7s '3
~
~ ;
a
~ ~
cd
p
03
t"
~O
s
yy
U ca
} U
, cd
N U
^
bb
U ti
'
U
N
En
:
+ U
Q
+U
bA
U
s:
10 0
p
'
V)
M W
0 4-4
O c
~
O
s,
U U O
O
03 M
4
0
O O
O'
• U
~ ~
0
Q "C3 cd
~ ~
00
00
In
N
~ ~
P+ ' ~
bA ~
O Cd
O ::s
cd
N
s
~
N
O
^O
ca
;Z M
~
C:
~
O
CO)
N
O
'd
U
-
C's C,3 N
cd
cC O
4-4
U
v~
Q
'C3
t"+
N U
C,3 U cd
E
v
m
o
~
~
f
N
T
u
•
. •
1
~
.
N
En c
~
s
O
y1
y V
X
N
CD
O
U
Q
f
U
Ig..
OU
OD
CD
N
a)
cn
0
O
_ f••'
0
ca
O ice.
C
N
N
a3 4-
N U
2
cc
N
O
cd
to
En
cu
U)
ca
0
a)
:3
F-
co
0
O
bA
V
x
a
cd
p f~'+ OU
"
p
O
U
a
"
c
d ~
O
~ ~
U.
0)
H
to
~
~
cn
o
u
o
-c
d n
x N
O ~
~ Q O
C4
Oro
k~kr)
O
N
o,
M
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY
1 RECO
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
II 111111111 II III
21!111111111 1
CLERK VY~~'N
06/17/100811:08:02 AM
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance to Establish County Procedures
Under Oregon Rule to Minimize Groundwater
Pollution in South Deschutes County, and
Declaring an Emergency.
* ORDINANCE NO. 2008-019
*
WHEREAS, extensive monitoring and study by the United States Geological Survey ("USGS") and the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has shown that the groundwater underlying the south Deschutes
County region is threatened by discharges from conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems serving
development in the region, and
WHEREAS, south Deschutes County is identified as those unincorporated portions of Deschutes
County contained in Townships 19, 20, 21, 22 and Ranges 9, 10, and 11, except those areas authorized by the
State for sewer; and
WHEREAS, recent studies have shown that the predominant source of nitrate contamination of the
groundwater in south Deschutes County is from onsite wastewater treatment systems; and
WHEREAS, OAR 340-071-0130(1) states that county permitting authorities acting on behalf of the
State, such as Deschutes County, may not authorize installation of a wastewater treatment system that is likely
to pollute public waters, but rather, must require the installation of a wastewater treatment system that protects
public waters or public health; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in a letter dated January 4, 2008,
determined that a public health hazard exists in the south Deschutes County area; and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County Code 11.12.010 defines "Nitrogen Reducing System" as a wastewater
treatment system that reduces nitrogen loading to the groundwater in accordance with the Nitrate Loading
Management Model and that is approved by Deschutes County" and defines "Nitrate Loading Management
Model" as "the groundwater model developed by the USGS to determine the nitrate loading capacity of the
drinking water aquifer underlying south Deschutes County;" and
WHEREAS, nitrogen reducing onsite wastewater treatment systems are available and effective to
reduce pollutants contributing to the public health hazard and protect public waters; and
WHEREAS, requiring nitrogen reducing systems for any new County permit for construction,
installation, major alteration or major repair helps reduce pollution contributing to the public health hazard; and
WHEREAS, on and after July 1, 2006 Deschutes County required property owners in south Deschutes
County who requested site evaluation report approvals for construction, installation, major alteration or major
repairs to wastewater treatment systems to install nitrogen reducing wastewater treatment systems; and
WHEREAS, prior to July 1, 2006 owners of approximately 700 properties in south Deschutes County
had received county site evaluation report approvals for onsite wastewater treatment systems, for which the
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-019 (06/11/08)
property owners have not received a permit to install the wastewater treatment system, and for those site
evaluation report approvals, the onsite wastewater treatment system that would have been approved at the time
of the site evaluation report is for a system that will not protect the groundwater in South Deschutes County
from nitrogen discharges; and
WHEREAS, repairs, replacements or remodels of existing development comprise approximately ninety
percent (90%) of the permits currently being issued; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. Except as provided in Section 4 of this Ordinance, every owner of property with or without
an existing onsite wastewater treatment system site evaluation report approval must install a nitrogen-reducing
onsite wastewater treatment system in order to receive a County permit for construction, major alteration or
major repair, as defined in Section 3 of this Ordinance.
Section 2. The requirements shall apply to onsite wastewater treatment system permit applications
submitted on and after the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 3. The following definitions from OAR 340-071-0100 are applicable to this Ordinance:
a. "Alteration" means expansion or change in location of an existing system or any part thereof.
1) Major alteration is the expansion or change in location of the soil absorption facility or
any part thereof.
2) Minor alteration is the replacement or relocation of a septic tank or other components of
the system other than the soil absorption facility.
b. "Construction" includes the installation of a new system or part thereof or the alteration, repair,
or extension of an existing system. The grading, excavating, and earth-moving work connected
with installation, alteration, or repair of a system or part thereof is considered system
construction.
C. "Repair" means installation of all portions of a system necessary to eliminate a public health
hazard or pollution of public waters created by a failing system. Major repair is the replacement
of a sand filter, RGF, ATT, or soil absorption system.
d. "Onsite Wastewater Treatment System" means any existing or proposed subsurface onsite
wastewater treatment and dispersal system including but not limited to a standard subsurface,
alternative, experimental, or nonwater-carried sewage system.
e. "Site Evaluation Report" means a report on the evaluation of a site to determine its suitability
for an onsite system prepared in accordance with OAR 340-071-0150.
f. "System" or "onsite system" means "onsite wastewater treatment system."
Section 4. The requirements of this Ordinance shall apply only to those unincorporated properties
within Townships 19, 20, 21, 22 and Ranges 9, 10, and 11, except those areas authorized by the State for a
sewer system.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason,
held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion or
portions of this Ordinance, unless:
The remaining part or parts are so essentially and inseparably connected with and dependent upon
the unconstitutional or invalid part that it is apparent that the remaining part or parts would not
have been enacted without the unconstitutional or invalid part; or
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-019 (06/11/08)
2. The remaining part or parts, standing alone, are incomplete and incapable of being carried out in
accordance with the Board of County Commissioners' intent.
Section 6. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
Dated this of ~~-2008
ATTEST:
&a QJv
-&atx~ Recording Secretary
Date of 1 s` Reading:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
DE11 NIS R. LUKE, Cher
T (B Y) L N, Vice Chair
_dayof 2008.
L-L
Date of 2nd Reading: day of 2008.
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Dennis R. Luke
Tammy Melton
Michael M. Daly
Effective date: 1L_ day of , 2008.
ATTEST:
(G~~ (&&)-A,
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-019 (06/11/08)
DRAFT DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARINGS
Deschutes County is pleased to announce the Board of County Commissioners will
conduct public hearings on the draft Comprehensive Plan beginning on March 29, 2011.
The Planning Commission recommended the new Comprehensive Plan to the Board of
Commissioners on January 13, 2011 following 2Y2 years of public input. It incorporates
local values, State regulations and existing conditions and trends. The draft Plan includes
goals and policies that will guide land use in unincorporated Deschutes County over the
next 20 years. A copy is available on our website at www.deschutes.org/cdd and click on
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Deschutes County invites you to participate in the public hearings. You are welcome to
share your thoughts and opinions in person by speaking to the Board or by submitting your
comments in writing. If you are not able to attend a public hearing, please send your
comments to the County Commissioners at board(D_co.deschutes.or.us.
Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing Schedule
Bend Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall March 29, 2011 6 p.m.
La Pine Senior Center 16450 Victory Way March 31, 2011 6 p.m.
Sisters City Hall 520 E Cascade Ave. April 5, 2011 6 p.m.
For More Information see Web site:
www.deschutes.orq/cdd and click on Comprehensive Plan Update
` F(_,4 fJ l4F'AL~TE