LandWatch and Friends of the Metolius (FOM) filed their opening brief to the Oregon Court of Appeals on March 24, arguing that the approval of destination resort zones around the Metolius is improper.

Story is here.

Working for the Native Restoration Fund of Vulcan Power Company, Mark Yinger of Mark Yinger Associates, along with Laura Strauss of Northwest Land & Water, recently a rigorous assessment of the hydrological impacts of destination resorts with particular emphasis placed on the proposed Thornburgh development. The report is entitled, "A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort Water Resources Impact Evaluation (Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon)"

Due the report's large size, we've broken it up into several files including an executive summary, the body of the report, tables, figures (broken out by different sections) and finally appendices. All are attached to the bottom of this post.

Not all Measure 37 claims for large subdivisions are dead. When Measure 49 passed it gave existing Measure 37 claimants three options:

1. The "Express Lane" gives a claimant a right to up to three houses provided that was allowed when the property was purchased;
2. the "Conditional" path gives claimants a right to build up to 10 houses provided they can show that they have actually lost that much money; Or
3. the "Vested Rights" path. If a claimant could show that they had proceeded far enough in the development of their subdivision or other land use that they had obtained a common law vested right to continue that use, then they could keep the rights they received under their Measure 37 claim.

Early reports from DLCD indicate that the vast majority of claimants are choosing the Express Lane – an easy way to get a few extra houses. However, a few claimants who wanted to develop large subdivisions are attempting to assert that they have acquired a vested right.

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.

Though the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in a February 11, 2008 decision acknowledged that destination resorts proposed for the Metolius area could have the impact of small cities and ruled that Jefferson County needed to reassess impacts to wildlife, LUBA failed to recognize the need for protection of other natural resources of the Metolius, including its heart, the Headwaters of the Metolius.

On Monday, March 3, Central Oregon LandWatch along with Friends of the Metolius appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals the LUBA determinations that:

Recent legal wrangling over proposed destination resorts in Central Oregon has grabbed its share of the headlines over the last several months. Among the numerous issues that have raised eyebrows are impacts to groundwater, wildlife, agriculture, and the cost of providing traffic infrastructure to serve these large-scale developments.

On November 29th, the Oregon Department of Transportation's Region 4 Manager, Bob Bryant, sent a letter (attached below) to LandWatch acknowledging that the approach used to calculate the resorts' share of the cost of providing needed highway facilities is outmoded and needs to be updated. Bryant's letter states that the agency is working to address this problem.

It's well known by now that although destination resorts are supposed to be focused on overnight visitation that they're becoming increasingly residential in nature and use. For several years now, the industry has focused on relaxing laws that restrict the sale of individual lots and the private single-family houses that are built upon them. The increase in privately-owned houses has been justified in part by the fact that many of them are supposed to be made available to overnight visitors, and that the owners themselves are only there - we're told - about 25% of the time, on average.

However, some of us have speculated that even if current owner occupation is low and homes operate successfully as rentals for the time being (the jury's still out on both these assertions, with the latter falling into the "extremely dubious" category), that over time many of these units will become places of primary residence. It's happened in other resorts areas - will in happen in Central Oregon?

The Oregonian has results here. It appears the measure has passed with more than 64% in support. This is a resounding victory... more later.

UPDATE: The final numbers are a little lower at 62/38 which is still greater than the margin M37 passed by three years ago, so this a complete turnaround and then some. The Bulletin reports that M49 passed in Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook with 55%, 59%, and 52% respectively. Overall, the measure won in 22 counties and lost in 14. Election Maps are here.

This morning at the their regular 10:00 business meeting, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners approved a long-discussed text amendment to loosen the county's regulations regarding destination resorts.

Commissioners Dennis Luke and Mike Daly voted in favor, while Commissioner Tammy Baney voted against the measure. Baney's objection was over her concern with an element of the application that would allow private residences to be made available to renters for only 38 weeks a year instead of 45 weeks a year.

I'm reporting on this not to pick a fight with two of our County Commissioners, but because I think it's important that people understand just how the issue of destination resorts is being legislated in Deschutes County.

Earlier this week, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners held a final scheduled worksession regarding an application from the resort industry that if approved would significantly relax the county's resort guidelines. Additional Details are here, but most significantly these rules would allow resorts to back out of the obligation of providing dedicated overnight lodging units and instead allow them to pursue potentially limitless numbers of private residences. In other words: less resort, more subdivision.

Watching news accounts of the California fires, and the monumental catastrophe unfolding in San Diego County, I can't help but think of similar risks right here in Central Oregon, and of the relationship between land use planning and natural disasters.