DREDGING
Below you will find "Draft 1" of the WOO Dredging Position Paper initiated by Sue Gress, which was the outcome of a discussion at the August meeting of the Waterfront Organizations of Oregon Board.
It was agreed that we have been re-hashing the dredging issue at each meting and never getting anywhere, and that we needed a "mission statement" describing what we see as the problem and what we would like to see done about it so that we could enlist the help of other organizations and present the problem to those who can help make changes.
Please e-mail any changes, additions, deletions, figures, comments, etc. to Sue Gress on the contact page of this Web Site. Thank you for your help.
WOO DREDGING POSITION PAPER (DRAFT 1)
Occasional dredging is a part of normal maintenance for many moorages and marinas in the greater Portland area. Rules and regulations regarding dredging have become more demanding over the years, as our understanding of the need to maintain clean and healthy rivers has grown. We who choose to live and work on Portland's rivers are the first to stand up for adequate protection of water habitats, but we believe that current dredging regulations go far beyond what is necessary for a healthy river.
The opinions of those who are most affected by these regulations are not heard when new rules are created. They are written entirely by government agencies, unchecked by any voice of economics or practicality. The result is procedures so unwieldy, and standards so high, that more and more applicants are either being denied a permit, or simply cannot afford the process.
As silt accumulates, small businesses and houseboat communities will be forced to close, taking away jobs and taxes, reducing recreational opportunities, and eliminating a historic and charming part of the Portland lifestyle.
We have three concerns:
1. The procedure for obtaining a permit to dredge is a bureaucratic quicksand. Even the most simple permit for non-contaminated material can take two (2) years.
SOLUTION: Work with the government agencies involved to create a "fast track" permit procedure for what they have identified as non-problem areas, and find ways to streamline and standardize the process elsewhere.
2. Contaminant levels are set impossibly low. An example is mercury, which occurs naturally in the upper Willamette river bank. When it is found in any measurable quantity, the material dredged, plus any other mercury containing material on the site, must be disposed of at an approved hazardous materials waste site, at a cost of $_______ per ton. Once a site has been determined to be contaminated, there is no appeal process.
SOLUTION: Agencies are now deciding on new contaminant levels, even more stringent than the current unfeasible rules. We want a voice in these decisions, and an appeal process instituted to handle cases such as the mercury problem.
3. Once we have gone through the expensive process of permitting for and removing non-hazardous material from the river, then storing it until it dries, if we can sell it, the State of Oregon wants a portion of the income.
SOLUTION: The State bears no part of the cost of removing or disposing of dredged material, so we do not believe they are entitled to share in the meager proceeds.