Item 4: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Mr. Wold explained that the language protected private property owners who were voluntarily entering into a conservation agreement to not have to disclose to the world what was on their property and what they were managing it for. Ms. Bettman asserted that the private property owners were getting public money but the public had no ability to track or document what they were doing. Ms. Wilson explained that some of the agreements had to do with endangered species and it was important not to let the public know, especially in the case of endangered plant species, where they were located because people dig them up and take them. She stated that a lot of those species were covered under an Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) regarding non-disclosure where the public interest against knowing and not knowing was weighed in order to protect a species. Ms. Bettman asked where the grant monies came from. Mr. Wold stated that at this point there was no money in either the Stewardship Agreement Grant Fund or the Flexible Incentives Account. He averred that at this point both were “holding concepts” for future accounts. Ms. Bettman asked why they would go through this trouble without an identified source of funding. Ms. Wilson replied that her understanding of the bill was that the main purpose of it was related to housekeep- ing. She related that the grant fund had been enacted in a legislative session a couple of years earlier and it had not “come out” the way it had been intended. She said legislators were hoping to address some of the concerns that had been raised and some of the administrative issues. In response to a question from Ms. Wilson, Mr. Wold said there were a variety of ways such funds were allocated. He stated that the Stewardship Agreement Grant Fund was being administered by the State Board of Forestry. He understood that the existing rules were disadvantageous to forest management of oak habitat, which was a priority for this area. He related that grant programs such as this one were in demand because they allowed for a stewardship agreement grant to be written that would customize management for a unique property. Mayor Piercy asked what groups supported and opposed the bill. Ms. Wilson replied that defenders of wildlife and conservation groups supported it and no one opposed it. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the bill did not require a written plan. Mr. Wold assured her that the steward- ship itself was a written document. Mr. Pryor pointed out that if one applied for money it was required that the application indicates how the money would be used. Mr. Wold cited Section 4, regarding Stewardship Agreements, which dictated that the stewardships would be reviewed to see if they continued to meet criteria. Ms. Bettman asked why staff was advocating for strong support. Mr. Wold replied that the bill would increase the motivation to do this kind of work. He said there were a lot of different funding opportunities for properties that had a significant amount of wetlands, riparian areas, or rivers. He noted that the State had some of those opportunities through the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). He commented that the only challenging element of the bill was the uncertainty as to where the money was coming from. Ms. Bettman reiterated that as long as the recommendation is a Priority 2 Support, and the resources are there with a method of accountability, then the committee is in support of the staff recommen- dation. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill had passed out of committee 40 minutes earlier but still had to be reviewed by the House Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Pryor supported the concept. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 29, 2007 Page 4