Waters of the State of Oregon
This is a better written bill than it was when it went into the Natural Resources Committee February 14th. Maybe that's one reason why it won such overwhelming approval on its final round. The fact that 16 Democrats and 14 Republicans could all agree about any piece of legislation, much less one with potential environmental/economic overtones might leave you thinking that anyone who might wish to continue fretting about this law is either crazy or an idiot – or possibly even both.
OK, call me crazy. Based upon my current understanding of the cut/fill process where “waters of the state” are concerned, this bill as enacted further tips the table towards the pockets of private enterprise at the expense of the Public Trust. It does this by giving permit applicants access to an additional and relatively low-cost appeal process when the DSL rules against their permits. I think this part of the bill, in and of itself, is strong. But what seems to smack of inequity here is the fact that access to this remedy is unavailable to individuals and/or organizations who may wish to contend against issuance of any of those permits.
Given my current understanding of the intricacies of the permitting process at every level of government it is quite possible that I simply haven’t fully grasped how these may bear on the Public Trust/Private Interest equity issue I see lurking in OSB1582. Certainly any sane person would look at the complete unanimity of the vote and quit the field. How could 30 Senators all be wrong, and at exactly the same time?
As I said, just call me crazy. As a survivor of the debacle that ensued from the Golf of Tonkin Resolution, I’m never surprised (and never comfortable) when an overwhelming majority of politicians from either side of the aisle suddenly meet in the middle and agree in principle on something that later on turns out to have been an obviously bad idea. I don’t mean to implying that these 30 senators are ALL clueless or that they’ve sold out the wetlands or were just too pressed for time to read the bill or anything like that. I’m just saying that I’m (1) inherently suspicious, (2) admittedly ignorant, and (3) therefore still very uncomfortable with what is, for all intents and purposes a done deal.
As soon as time permits I am going to get my head more completely around the permitting process. I believe I have an excellent grasp of the non-political issues, and a fair comprehension of the basic regulatory processes; but I am still a novice where the intricacies of watershed governance and related processes are concerned. Maybe when I’ve become more well-informed I will be able to make that vote 31/0.