Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Jones noted that the City of Portland, Clackamas County, and local manufacturer Spec Pipe were concerned about the bill because of the administrative issues involved and because certain materials were not necessarily available locally. Mr. Papd believed the bill would generate lawsuits and depress public contracting jobs. In addition, it could force local governments to use one or two suppliers in the state and limit competition. Ms. Bettman questioned whether Mr. Pap~ had a conflict of interest in regard to the bill. Mr. Pap~ said no. Mr. Pap~ asked about any related federal constitutional issues, such the Commerce Clause. Mr. Lidz indicated he had not read the bill, but did not think so. He indicated there were Commerce Clause issues with direct local preference. Ms. Bettman asked about the likelihood the bill would pass. Ms. Brooks pointed out that the bill had been introduced into the House, which was not inclined to support such bills. It had been referred to the House Business Committee, and would likely get a hearing the following week. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. SB 0532 Ms. Taylor asked why staff recommended opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 532, which would prohibit the Environmental Quality Commission from establishing water quality standards that are less stringent than those previously established, Mr. Ruffler said the federal government required the states to review their standards every three years. In that process, the states examine new science and new understanding of how pollutants work in the environment. From time to time the standards change, and become more or less stringent depending on the data. The bill would prevent the State from either aligning with the federal standards or taking into acocount information that could be unique or specific to Oregon. Mr. Ruffler said the bill sounded good on its face, but it could result in situations where the City would be treating wastewa- ter to no beneficial environment. Ms. Brooks indicated the bill was likely dead. It had no hearing and had not moved out of committee before the "drop-dead" date of April 8. However, it was important to follow such bills in case special permission was granted to move them forward. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Bettman said she wanted the City to support the bill if it was not yet dead. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. HB 0652 Ms. Brooks said the bill, which would direct the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to create a program for testing toxic substances in fish, had a hearing on April 4. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 5