As we've mentioned in previous posts (here and here) when Governor Kulongoski threatened to veto SB 30 last June, he did so with a promise - that he would task ODF&W, OWRD, and DEQ with addressing causes for concern created by large-scale destination resorts near the Metolius and ask them to evaluate whether or not existing law could address those concerns.

Recently, LandWatch received letters from DEQ and ODF&W via the Governor's office, and just this morning, we received OWRD's letter as well, albeit through unofficial channels. Each is attached to this post below.

Although we will offer a more thorough assessment of what these letters mean in the near future, there are a few basic elements of OWRD's letter worthy of immediate note, each discussed in greater detail in the letter itself. To sum up, the agency arrives at two important conclusions, three possible courses of action, and a recommendation for how to proceed.

The first conclusion is that large-scale developments such as resorts sited in or near the basin have the potential to impact the river. Okay, we pretty much knew that, and the USGS has already put that on the record, but it's nice to hear them say it. The second is that the the agency seems to believe that while the mitigation program is able to address impacts of resorts within the basin to the river itself (Lundgren is in the basin), it is unable to address impacts of resorts sited near but outside the basin (Colson is outside the basin).

(While OWRD is right about the inability to address impacts of resorts outside the basin, it doesn't seem willing to admit that its ability to mitigate within the basin is at best incomplete. Although a resort like Lundgren's could satisfy the mitigation requirements - if it could even find enough mitigation credits within the basin - by mitigating downstream of its impacts, there are no requirements no mitigate at the zone of impact. So, for example, a resort sited in the basin could dry up the headwaters and so long as it mitigated at some point downstream, the requirements of the basin's mitigation program would be satisfied.)

So there are some obvious problems with the current mitigation program as concerns the Metolius, not to mention other "protected" rivers such as the Crooked and the Whychus. What are the solutions? The options OWRD has identified are: 1) require mitigation for new groundwater use in all zones where state scenic waterways are affected 2) close off the Metolius basin to additional groundwater uses, and 3) limit where new developments could withdraw groundwater.

And the agency's conclusion is as follows:

It is the department's view that the Deschutes Mitigation Program has been successful at balancing streamflow protection with economic development in the Deschutes Basin. For this reason, we recommend that this program continue to operate as it is currently administered.

So in essence, OWRD has acknowledged a problem, identified several solutions, and decided to do nothing. In this instance, the very state agency charged with protecting our rivers and streams (that's a fair thing to ask of them, isn't it?) has decided not to protect our rivers and streams because destination resorts are too important. I guess someone else is going to have to step in and do something.

As I said before, we'll get back to you with a more detailed assessment of each of the letters in the near future, but for now, this ought to give you something to think about as you ponder the future of the Metolius River.