In Oregon Legislature
Long bill would revise environment laws
By KYLE JOHNSON
Of the Emerald
A 160-page bill revising Oregon en
vironmental laws has been introduced in
the Oregon legislature.
The bill, Senate Bill 77, is the result of a
resolution passed during the 1971
legislature. The 1971 legislature, along
with a number of other previous legislative
sessions, had passed a great number of
environmental laws. Many times these
laws were not in harmony with each other.
The resolution, House Joint Resolution
52, called for the Legislative Counsel
Committee (LOC), under the supervision
of the Law Improvement Committee
(LIC), to prepare a “topical revision of the
laws of this state relating to en
vironment.”
In October, 1972, a preliminary study of
the environmental laws was completed.
In a letter to members of the legislature,
J. Robert Jordan, chairer of LIC,
described the study. “The drafters have
systematically examined each section of
the laws relating to environment to
determine what the law is and whether it is
clearly and concisely expressed. That
examination demonstrated a real need for
topical revision, including not only the
rephrasing of language and reorganization
of structure, but also the need for a con
solidation of procedures. In the process of
carrying out this topical revision, in
stances of conflicts, ambiguities and
uncertainties have been encountered and
resolved.”
The foreword to the preliminary draft
says “the draft emphasizes primarily
.reorganizing the structure of the en
vironment law to reduce its bulk.”
“Only two basic substantive changes are
proposed” continues the foreword. “One
concerns substitution of the Ad
ministrative Procedures Act governing
administrative hearings for laws par
ticularly applicable to the environment
law. This change moves toward greater
uniformity in state administrative law and
is consistent with other changes made by
the 1971 legislature.”
“The second substantive change stems
from the problem of confidentiality of
reports and other information on trade
secrets that are made available to the
states as a result of certain enforcement
procedures. The draft contains an adap
tation of the confidentiality language used
in the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. ...”
The drafter of the preliminary study also
felt there was another substantive change
“which may not be perfectly expressed in
the preliminary draft . . . concerns ad
ministrative responsibility for subsurface
sewage. Under present law that respon
sibility is vested in the Health Division.
Under the proposed revision, that
responsibility is to be vested in the
Department of Environmental Quality.”
The drafter also noted a few other
changes. “Permit fees for air emission
permits issued by regional authorities will
be retained by the regional authorities if
the commission finds the authority
complies with state standards.”
“Liens obtained through nonpayment of
civil penalties are to be applicable only to
property in the county where the
judgement is docketed” said the drafter.
A hearing on the preliminary draft was
held Nov. 16, 1972. The hearing covered
virtually every part of the 166-page draft.
Representatives from the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), Columbia
Willamette Air Pollution Authority
(CWAPA), Associated Oregon Industries
(AOI), the Health Division, and the Oregon
Environmental Council (OEC) all spoke at
the five-hour hearing.
Comments were made cm each of the 17
parts and 235 sections of the draft before
both the LIC and LCC.
Section Six of the preliminary draft drew
both favorable and unfavorable com
ments. The proposed section would make
“any records, reports or information”
available to the public, except if classified
as “confidential” by the director of the
DEQ. This information could be classified
as confidential by the director if it waw
shown the information was a “trade
secret.”
John Neilson of the OEC supported the
change saying “these provisions are
essential if interested groups and citizens
of all types are to evaluate the ef
fectiveness of pollution control programs
and provide informed citizen input.”
Tom Donaca of AOI objected to the
change for two reasons. He objected to
putting so much discretion in the director
and questioned whether a failure to
classify properly a piece of information
would make the director personally liable.
Although most of the preliminary
changes dealt with only laws already
enacted, there were two new parts on
water purity and subsurface sewage that
caused comment.
The part on water purity allows for the
establishment of water purity standards
by the Health Division. If these standards
are not met, the proposed law provides for
a civil penalty of up to $500 a day for
violations. According to the drafter, this is
“intended to make enforcement
procedures more similar to those for water
and air pollution statutes.”
The controversy over subsurface
sewage dealt with which state division, the
Health Division or the DEQ, should have
jurisdiction. Neilson supported the
proposed jurisdiction ot the DEQ because
it will allow the DEQ to “consolidate
authority and allow one state agency to
begin a more integrated and coordinated
program for sewage disposal.”
The preliminary draft provided for no
construction of a subsurface sewage
disposal site unless a permit is secured
and certain regulations are met. Presently
constructed sites would not be affected.
Neilson said the OEC supported the
preliminary draft of environment law
because it “reflects a good job of con
solidating existing administrative and
enforcement statutes.”
If the bill is passed, it will bring virtual
harmony to the state’s environmental law,
considered by some to be the best in the
United States.
Wilderness proposal doesn’t
‘go far enough’ says group
A proposed “Oregon Omnibus
Wilderness Bill” (OOWB) has
drawn fire from a Eugene-based
conservation organization.
The Oregon Wilderness
Coalition (OWC) made its
comments in a Jan. 12th letter to
the proposed trill’s sponsor, Sen.
Mark Hatfield.
The OWC letter states that the
coalition “approves of both the
basic OOWB concept and of all
the specific inclusions,” though
they don’t feel the proposals “go
far enough.”
Bob Wazeka, a member of the
coalition, said that in September,
Hatfield mailed 5000 copies of a
letter describing the proposed bill
to various industry, conservation
and civic groups, and asked for
comments.
The OWC proposes in the letter
to triple Hatfield’s proposed
wilderness additions, and include
“Wilderness Candidate Study
Areas” in the bill. The U.S.
Forest Service has under study
the Wilderness Candidate Study
Areas for possible addition to
present wilderness areas. 1116
OWC questioned Hatfield
whether it was “a simple over
sight er a deliberate legislative
The beer with
Mountain Fresh flavor.
Rainier Beer.
Ram** Brewing Company Scent# Washington
decision” to not include these
areas.
Hatfield’s proposed bill
provides for the addition of more
than 355,000 acres to the present
Oregon wilderness. Two of the
major additions would be the
establishment of a 117,430-acre
Sky Lakes wilderness and a
134,010-acre addition to the
Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
Hatfield indicates in his letter
that the wilderness additions will
reduce the total allowable cut on
Oregon National Forest land by
1.2 per cent.
The coalition letter states they
like Hatfield’s “implied
argument.” but they also point
W. C. FELDS
M
“FATAL GLASS OF BEER”
and
“THE BARBER SHOP”
FRI JAN 1»
7 & » PM 75c
150 SCIENCE
U of O TENNIS TEAM
out that his proposed additions
amount to less that one half of one
per cent of all Oregon timber
land.
The additions the OWC
proposes amount to 724,000 a&es
more than the Hatfield proposal.
This does not include the 580,000
acre Wilderness Candidate Study
Areas.
A 123,700-acre addition to the
Three Sisters Wilderness Area is
advocated by the OWC, an in
crease of more than 108,000 acres
over Hatfield’s proposal. The
OWC addition contains the
French Pete Creek valley.
A major coalition proposal
calls for a 164,300-acre wilderness
alone the Snake River.
LOSE 20 POUNDS
IN TWO WEEKS!
Famous U.S. Woman Ski Team Diet
During the non-mow off season
the U.S. Women'* Alpine Ski Team
member* go on the “Ski Team” diet
to tote 20 pound* in two week*.
That’* right — 20 pound* in 14 day*!
The batit of the diet it chemical food
action and wat devised by a famous
Colorado physician especially for the
U.S. Ski Team. Normal energy is
maintained (very important!) while
reducing. You keep “full" — no
starvation — because the diet it de
signed that way! It's a diet that is
easy to follow whether you work,
travel or stay at home.
This is. honestly, a fantastically
successful diet. If it weren't, the U.S.
Women's Ski Team wouldn't be per
muted to use it! Right? So, give
yourself the same break the U.S Ski
Team gets. Lose weight the scientific,
proven way. Even it you've tried all
the other diets, you owe it to your
self to try the U.S. Women's Ski
Team Diet. That is, if you really do
want to lose 20 pounds in two weeks.
Order today. Tear this out as a
reminder
Send only S200 (12.25 for Rush
Service) — cash is O.K. — to Infor
mation Sources Co., P.O. Box 982,
Dept ST, Carpinteria, Calif. 9)013.
Don’t order unless you expect to lose
20 pounds in two weeks! Because
that's what the Ski Team Diet will do!
lec
Hawaii
Spring
Vacation
Portland
Roundtrip
$ 14400
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND
APPLICATION AVAILABLE
Deadline for Applications Feb. 10th
International Education
Center
Rm. 202 EMU X3721
MURPHY'S
BIRTHDAY
Variety, songs, poems,
a boxing match, a pig chase,
play and a film, ....
with a message.
.. : • r .• ’
SATURDAY, JAN. 20
8pm EMU Ballroom
U of O
Tickets - $ 1 00 at the door
presented by ASUO Cultural Forum
i