State of Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality  Memorandum

Presiding Officer's Report

Date: March 10, 2011

To:    Environmental Quality Commission

From:    Cheryll Hutchens-Woods

Subject:  Presiding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearing

Title of Proposal:  Revising Human Health Water Quality Standards for Toxic Pollutants

Hearing Date and Time:  February 7, 2011 2:30 p.m. (MST)

Hearing Location:    Ontario City Hall

       Council Chambers (2nd floor)

   444 SW 4th St.

       Ontario, OR 97914
       

The hearings officer was Cheryll Hutchens-Woods. Thirty-eight people attended the hearing, seven provided oral testimony. The department convened the rulemaking hearing on the proposal referenced above at 2:30 p.m. and closed it at approximately 4:24 p.m.

Cheryll announced that she was serving as the hearings officer for this public hearing. Cheryll introduced Andrea Matzke and Gene Foster from DEQ, who gave a short presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking.

People were asked to sign registration forms if they wished to present comments. People were also advised that the hearing was being recorded.

Cheryll announced at 3:50 p.m. she would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking. She informed people that the hearing would be recorded and that testimony would become part of the public record for the rulemaking. Cheryll explained her role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal comments. She asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. She added that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments. Cheryll reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is Monday, February 23, 2011, at 5 p.m. (this date was later extended to March 21, 2011). She stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. She added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for June 16-17, 2011, and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

Summary of the Testimony

Seven persons provided oral testimony. Table 1 lists the names of those who provided testimony and the general position supported by each person.

TABLE 1: List of Commenters

The following is a summary of written and oral comments received at the hearing. The department will include these comments in the Summary of Comments and Agency Responses for this rulemaking. All of the testifiers who commented on the WQ Toxics Rule were opposed to the rulemaking. One person testifying made comments in opposition to the Arsenic Rule which is not part of this rulemaking. Those testifying in opposition to the rulemaking mainly consist of municipalities or other government entities, agricultural interest, and private citizens.

The City of Ontario had two officials commenting in opposition to the rule. Their comments included concerns that the citizens of Eastern Oregon are being required to follow statistics from the western half of the state. They encouraged DEQ to develop rules that are area specific. The city also provided details on how the city has worked to improve water quality in their areas by improving their sewage collection system, an aggressive stormwater program, and work done in conjunction with the Watershed Enhancement Board. They also commented that the program needs to address all sources not just focus on water quality permit holders. Finally, there were a number of concerns expressed by the City of Ontario regarding the City’s concern around the cost and difficulty of complying with proposed arsenic regulatory levels and potential cost to their ratepayers. (Note: Arsenic is not part of this rulemaking.)

Many of the private citizens who opposed the rulemaking came from the agricultural sector. They are opposed to having DEQ directly regulate or enforce water quality standards. They expressed concern that the rule as proposed would interfere with the already positive working relationship that they share with Oregon Department of Agriculture. They believe that there has been a great deal of effort put into the developing plans with ODA and they believe that the Ag Water Quality Management Plans do work. There were comments by three citizens stating that if DEQ interjects itself into the relationship that they have with ODA it will result in an adversarial relationship. In addition it was stated that DEQ is acting outside the statute.

Commenters also voiced concern that the implementation of the rule will cause job losses. The rule will put agricultural producers out of business. This will result in fewer jobs available and more people will be out of work. In addition, businesses and jobs are leaving the state because of excess rulemaking.

Finally, there were comments made regarding the fish consumption number that is identified in the rulemaking. There was concern expressed that the number was based on consumption from a study based in the Puget Sound area, not in Oregon. There was also concern voiced that the consumption rates were based on a small segment of Oregon’s population and not well founded. Finally, it was noted that the proposed fish consumption rate is twenty-six times greater than the rate that is currently in place in the State of Washington.

There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at approximately 4:24 p.m.