Keep Our Water Safe Committee
Laurel Hines, chairperson • 10371 Lake Drive SE • Salem, Oregon 97306
Phone: (503) 371-8892 • Email:
To: MarionCounty Planning Commission
From: Laurel Hines
RE: Sub 06-03
Date: January 2, 2007
1997 Planning Commission minutes establishing SGO Ordinance suggest intention to require full studies for subdivisions, larger threshold lot size, and a monitoring ordinance which never occurred
Below is a summary of what is contained in the Planning Commission minutes from April 15th to June 17th, 1997, the period of time Rick Kienle reported his study to the Commission and made recommendations, and the Commission voted to adopt the SGO Ordinance.
Apparently a monitoring ordinance was to accompany the SGO Ordinance to obtain more data on actual recharge, etc, but was never begun as planned, and has still not occurred. (It now has been 10 years, with 10 years of additional development with little actual monitoring of areas with well problems).
There was a clear discussion that only the AR areas, where development was expected, were studied by Kienle, and not EFU zones.
The Planning Commission voted on what was called a “watered down” version of what Kienle recommended for the Ordinance, apparently pending new data from monitoring, which was to be periodically reviewed every few years as information came in.
There is considerable evidence that the intention was to require a Major Hydrogeology Study for subdivisions, especially those over 20 acres. There is no mention of an “average threshold lot size,” just a threshold lot size. Originally the intended threshold size was suggested by DLCD (Department of Land Conservation and Development) to be 10 acres, but the Commission reduced it to 5 acres.
This would suggest that it was not intended that a developer could “average” small lots in one area with one very big 92 acre area nearby to create a larger, but deceptive, average threshold size for a dense development in one area to avoid any proof of actual groundwater adequacy (as the Laack development is attempting to do).
I believe the documentation below shows that the Ordinance was intended to require a full Hydrogeology Study (involving monitoring) for subdivisions, especially for those over 20 acres and those with lots proposed to be smaller than 5 acres each.
Since the County never began its own monitoring program, as was intended over the past 10 years, and EFU zones were never studied at all, there is more evidence to support our assertion that a full Hydro Study should be required for subdivisions like SUB 06-03 which is in an EFU zone, as well as an area with considerable evidence of declining wells. To not do so would violate the State requirement to protect sustainability of the groundwater resources.
April 15, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes (statements by Kienle in his presentation):
- “there are places where the water is fully utilized”
- He said a water budget gives a pretty reliable idea of what is being used every year, but there is also a need to look at changes in wells and water levels to see if they are stable.
- “The areas with the most wells are areas where people report the most problems” (with groundwater).
- “There are some areas of the County where the water decline appears to have been permanently lowered.”
- “A Major Hydro Study is a Minor and Intermediate Study plus new data. This is for areas of concern and the new data could be a pump test, observing groundwater levels during a year, and you must show recharge is available.”
- “If a person is going to attempt to estimate annual recharge you need a good basis for the annual water level. This involves observing the levels for a year or two.”
May 6, 1997 Planning Commission minutes:
- Originally 10 acres was discussed as the threshold lot size, but the commission felt it was “too much of a burden” and apparently reduced it to 5 acres. However there is no mention of allowing “averaging” of the lot size with surrounding larger acreage areas which may be in a different aquifer type.
- R. Hallyburton of DLCDdiscussed the intention that a subdivision may entail a Major Hydro Study, and suggested Major Studies of areas of 20 acres or more.
- R. Giesen of OWRD (Oregon Water Resources Department) testified that the Kienle Study “supports the need to show water availability for subdivisions.”
- Steve Tandy (Chinook developer) said he had studies done by Kienle and another geologist. He testified that Kienle told him “that any area of testing has to be site specific because a blanket 10 acre area could have different aquifers with different results.”
- Kienle stated that “the study showed 25 sections (in MarionCounty) with lack of recharge” for sustainable groundwater.
- Mr. Kinklea, a former Planning Commission chairman, said “monitoring is the key to the whole thing.”
May 13, 1997 Planning Commission minutes:
R. Hallyburton (DLCD) reminded the commission about the State statute that requires counties to protect groundwater resources.
May 20, 1997 Planning Commission minutes:
F. Listner of OWRD said “In basalts interference spreads out very fast and 300 feet is not an unreasonable number” to consider for well interference.
May 27, 1997 Planning Commission minutes:
Lots of discussion was held about the need to have a groundwater monitoring ordinance along with the SGO Ordinance. A motion passed to recommend adoption of the groundwater monitoring program. (However, apparently this never got off the ground due to lack of funds).
June 17, 1997 Planning Commission minutes:
Commissioner Learn said that the SGO Ordinance was “a starting point to begin collecting much-needed data.” This statement also seemed to clearly show the intention to have monitoring either by the county or required of developers.
Sincerely,
Laurel Hines
Keep Our Water Safe Committee
Page 1 of 3