Minutes of Land, Air and Water Use Committee, May 27, 2004
Present: Ken Crouse, Jesse Ford, Curt Seeliger, Jana
Seeliger, Bill Pearcy, Amy Schoener
Convened at 5:40 pm
- GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER materials and how these
may/may not apply to Lakeside Development, in Philomath.
- Evidently, news that we would be screening a short
video on conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater was just what
people wanted for a Thursday night. Unfortunately, the VCR turned out to be
dysfunctional, so we will circulate the materials lent by Todd Jarvis and
view independently.
- This interest is spurred by the findings of the OSU/UofO
Willamette Valley visioning project (led by Stan Gregory and David Hulse,
respectively) that water is going to be limiting in the Willamette Valley
with even the most conservative development scenario. How does this play out
for Lakeside, the biggest business development ever in Philomath, that
includes potential for various water-demanding activities (e.g., meat
packing).
- Two action items resulted from the ensuing
conversation:
i.
a poster for the Tyee event about this issue of water being a
developmentally sensitive issue for the entire Valley(Amy S. is taking the lead)
ii.
possible conversations with Philomath business leaders (will be broached
at the full MRWC meeting next week) about pursuing studies on
groundwater/surface water situation with respect to Philomath. Amy indicated
that there seems to be a group of these leaders who are interested in knowing
more about local water resources. The availability of several potential funding
sources to actually field such studies was noted, and MRWC’s dilemma aparently
being stonewalled by the Philomath City Council to work cooperatively on such
studies was discussed. We have been trying to get a partnership in place now for
many months. Regardless of the level of political interest in this issue,
however, we feel that data on water resources is needed.
- One additional action item is for Ford to circulate a
.pdf file of a relevant peer-reviewed manuscript to the group (Dole and
Niemi, Future water allocation and instream values in the Willamette River
Basin; A basin-wide analysis).
- GIS:
- The questionnaire that Ken circulated to the
membership produced 9 responses that indicated that few people have access
to GIS, and GIS experience ranged from none to novice. However, there was
signifiance interest in using GIS products. For this reason, Ken concluded
and we concur that the best way to pursue MRWC GIS is via the development of
a Web/browser interface, rather than creation and circulation of GIS files.
- Benton County Planning Dept has agreed to host data
for MRWC and will provide assistance in getting data onto their server
- Ken is working on a set of guidelines for GIS data for
the watershed council. It is important to note that because we are focused
on endusers rather than data authors, there may be an ongoing need for
relevant files to be translated into the final format. Ken is open to input
on the guidelines until 15 August 2004, and will circulate a set of draft
guidelines at the September meeting for comments. The plan is to finalize
guidelines by the October meeting, and then proceed in creating sets of
files of interest to the membership and posting them to a website.
- In response to the comments at Philomath city council
meeting recently questioning whether in fact the city was actually part of the
MRW, Ken created a simple coverage that placed Philomath in spatial context.
Again, what to do with this coverage will be broached at the June 2 MRWC
meeting. Perhaps it would be of interest to have a LAWUC member attend the
next Philomath City Council meeting and put the coverage into the record, in
which case we should make enough copies for all council members.
- EVANITE: There has been a proposal to decrease water
quality monitoring at the Evanite facility (due to the shutdown of some of the
units). There is a public comment period. Curt will follow up on this issue in
time to file comments, if needed, which requires as a first step getting the
documents in question to review. The second step, if response seems warranted,
is to discuss (via email) with committee members, and probably also with the
Water Quality Committee.
Adjourned ca. 7 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jesse Ford