[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6322367,"mediaKeyId","2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48","parentId",2347944,"title","Lawmakers hear results from juniper removal pilot and push to expand grants for treatment","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",4735000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48&start=4735&end=4735","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48/thumbnail_4735000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6322367/Oregon/Lawmakers-hear-results-from-juniper-removal-pilot-and-push-to-expand-grants-for-treatment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322367-60b35563011a6b81c63c5475a8790a60/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145596&Signature=JMQSaP3BvvbtpQG8sNVAVw11-HPiJHZLVTkwg5cB~id855RC3Q4mpmdIVLKe4kVhkHdS2SokmTl1MaAj9v7PHnj4yYuAz8tKTdQ5SMPZw17KrSeOaMr9iAqYCPEucmbQRXsm7ny6j9gsKvGcwKtsGMCiT5o5CPvBLGBY2L1fdtekSR5CvUpPycKEsqzw9ATFMGtPRpfvr61aIJt7b5BqNOSkjiXS5rvrEafS2Tvu4t9zj-DGxxv-Qqvc5em1OUZ3r6YtVDOGAZl17JYaAzxFxQkqh7y9uYBgvkh3kaLRHdj-uP4MnYq2cwu2aW0m4QGbQqvOIYWxKnlDltfqQ45ZJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 3135 would appropriate $15 million from the general fund to the Department of Administrative Services to provide grants to soil and water conservation districts that coordinate juniper-removal and related conservation projects in specified counties, Representative Vikki Breese Iverson told the committee.

\"In much of Central and Eastern Oregon we've seen a rapid increase in juniper weeds... Studies have shown large juniper weeds can consume somewhere between 25 and 40 gallons a day,\" Representative Vikki Breese Iverson told the committee, describing the pilot program created by HB 2010 the prior session and the districts' progress under that pilot.

Stakeholders presented monitoring, ecological and operational results from the pilot. Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council program coordinator Summers Taylor and Crook County Soil and Water Conservation District manager Andy Gallagher demonstrated before-and-after imagery and monitoring plans. Gallagher said Crook County used House Bill 2010 funds plus other grants (OWEB, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation) to treat roughly 3,000 acres on private land, install monitoring equipment (two weather stations, three shallow wells and a flume) and establish baseline data ahead of treatment and monitoring.

\"This root picture shows the extensive and deep root system of a mature juniper. Juniper trees like this sequester a large amount of water. Something like this on average can sequester about 4,815 gallons of water annually,\" Summers Taylor said while showing the program's GIS story map and before/after treatment imagery. County partners said treated sites have shown native grasses and shrubs returning and, in some project plots, early signs of increased surface water at monitored sites.

Speakers emphasized multiple benefits beyond water: restored steppe habitat, reduced wildfire risk and potential biomass uses. Eric Clon, acting city engineer for the city of Prineville, described local interest in a biomass energy project to convert removed juniper into renewable energy feedstock and noted the city's support for steelhead reintroduction and other restoration projects.

Committee members asked technical questions about treatment strategy. Witnesses said the program preserves older, culturally significant juniper trees and focuses on removing dense, younger expansion that had altered historic fire and hydrologic regimes; partners expect some follow-up treatments on regrowth and built monitoring into project plans. Andy Gallagher said some treatments will include prescribed burns in addition to mechanical cutting depending on site conditions.

Representative Breese Iverson said the pilot program has produced data and momentum and that members of a newly formed Central Oregon Caucus support expanding the program. Sponsors and districts said HB 3135 largely mirrors HB 2010's language with technical fixes and would continue the pilot model at broader scale.

Ending: The committee heard substantial evidence of ecological and hydrologic response from the pilot projects and received requests to continue funding; the public hearing closed with committee members praising the quick uptake of projects and asking staff to consider monitoring and reuse pathways for removed juniper.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water 02/19/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Vikki Breese Iverson and Central Oregon partners described a pilot program to remove invasive western juniper that has already produced restoration and hydrologic monitoring work; HB 3135 would appropriate $15 million for a grant program to scale treatments in selected counties.","taxTitle","Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17399,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6322372,"Marine Board, outfitters seek fee restructuring to resolve interstate commerce issue",619,4155000,4774000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48&start=4155&end=4774","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48/thumbnail_4155000.jpg","/articles/6322372/Oregon/Marine-Board-outfitters-seek-fee-restructuring-to-resolve-interstate-commerce-issue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322372-25f1c5a22c5f8afb5ab1871ea4075f1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145596&Signature=fOAxF8m8kPfwFsGxExKByICbqM7nLT9vQS01wi9fy2CbkILjI1F~Yw82HZwnkvQebQZ5fH0xlKThOMljnIm2YCWlPnyCjyL-kIM46bAkHxWLLh4EMvid5DsQLoprEYGImh4duLL6JLfgJdmZlCFvo3YDHmcEo~PjwTZ6z1zwa6~7EtXHTEuLpkjfpCgF6VX1guZE-zMH5-hhpeZsc~0SKPMxvuUhszBs5-7uC3yZrP0tJTDUlmKC15gZMTBrRdLiaQm61K1VDtJ1rI5rSIv3VizE8pFr-eDNBP7KDStvOPetCoArewfFQxDvDFbzLThrpmMKwIkaw1Y-PsqpaPwxhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 2558 would restructure the registration fee framework for Oregon's outfitter-and-guide program, establish a registration fee for crew members and increase civil penalties for noncompliance, the Oregon State Marine Board told the committee.

\"As introduced, the bill restructures fees so that the annual Outfitter Guide registration is the same for an Oregon resident and nonresident,\" Brian Paulson, boating safety program manager for the Oregon State Marine Board, told the committee. Paulson said the current nonresident fee structure presented an interstate-commerce (dormant Commerce Clause) concern because the program cannot demonstrate a valid burden that justifies charging nonresidents a higher fee.

The Marine Board and the outfitter community developed a dash-1 amendment after outreach. The amendment equalizes resident and nonresident annual registration fees to avoid a Commerce Clause challenge, establishes a charter-guide fee (charter guides face a more comprehensive regulatory framework), creates a separate crew-member registration fee to address employee classification and processing costs, and increases civil penalties for first and subsequent violations.

The board described the program's enforcement component as a substantial portion of program activity and funding. Paulson said the Outfitter Guide Program includes registration (application, proof of insurance, surety bond, employee lists), safety requirements (background checks, first aid/CPR, merchant mariner credentials where applicable) and enforcement such as prosecutions of illegal guiding.

Brian Sykes, president of the Oregon Outfitters and Guides Association and owner of a multi-river rafting company, said the association supports HB 2558 as amended and praised the Marine Board's work to professionalize the industry and fund continued enforcement to curb illegal guiding.

\"The proposed amendment is a result of those discussions and adequately addresses our concerns with fees and issues with employee classification, and registration,\" Sykes said in testimony.

The committee asked technical questions about the scope of the charter-guide definition and state reciprocity with Washington. Paulson said the existing statutory definition referenced specific Pacific Coast navigation points used in other states' definitions and the amendment removes relic language tied to that approach; equalizing fees removes the interstate-commerce problem while preserving public-safety and background-check standards.

Ending: Committee members praised the collaborative work between the Marine Board and the outfitter community; the committee closed the public hearing and signalled the bill would move forward for consideration with the suggested amendment.","House Bill 2558 would revamp Oregon's outfitter-and-guide registration fees, add a crew-member registration fee and increase penalties; the change aims to address dormant commerce-clause concerns and to provide stable funding for enforcement and program administration.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6322377,"Debate grows over measurement and reporting authority in proposed water data bill",2430,1738000,4168000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48&start=1738&end=4168","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48/thumbnail_1738000.jpg","/articles/6322377/Oregon/Debate-grows-over-measurement-and-reporting-authority-in-proposed-water-data-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322377-5e2d8884de4f077dbcaf9997553b23f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145596&Signature=erocpdNnAa1ser36Ao9BSGzl-THgaQqXcUmWBLBHmGCmc6wuZVaujCPLHRu26xNn94yonDHk480P8zevmM02Z0M6ciSrIJBoKYvr5Rrz7AG5TTkse4JAq65z1sYQ-eovOwDQu3dNnn7rZsxijY4OBG03VIQ4SL2Bb2V2vxJMA4JebsPmeMpqplYgvZvmrJhFPbtUTn46MjLWlT7iAxPSTEHWDlZe9ENUCsEEktd9hgNn4L7Z3JkQ9gUMgLKBAEef5vArf3-ZECRQwbteZyOZA6verHkhmVyXPZo6fJsG7bNW~byPb6WhPLGulLgJKGWWIx9XKO07aGi~Ds1eFrwWPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 3419 would standardize and expand Oregon's authority to require water-use measurement and reporting, create a consolidated rulemaking framework for measurement and enforcement, rename certain management designations and modify the water measurement cost-share program; the Water Resources Department testified that it is not taking a position and described existing fragmented authorities.

\"This is for informational purposes,\" Raquel Ranciere, deputy director of the Water Resources Department, told the committee, and she summarized the department's view that existing authorities are fragmented across statute and that the bill aims to provide standardized authority for measurement, reporting and enforcement.

The draft would authorize the department to require measurement and reporting across chapter authorities, create standard enforcement options, allow conditioning of transfers and extensions to improve administrative efficiency, and explicitly allow measurement and reporting as part of critical groundwater area designations or water-data priority areas (a proposed renaming of \"serious water management problem areas\"). The bill would also allow the department to set reporting frequency by rule and expand the water-measurement cost-share program to cover additional device types.

Conservation and river groups supported the bill's premise. \"This bill is a big step forward,\" Caitlin (Kalynn) Barter of the Oregon Water Partnership told the committee, saying better data are essential to stewarding cold, clean water amid drought and changing climate. Kimberly Priestley of WaterWatch of Oregon said the bill \"clarify and grow permissive authorities\" and emphasized that the bill was not prescriptive and contained no new statewide mandates as introduced.

Opponents — including well drillers, rural landowners and associations representing exempt-well owners — warned the department lacks capacity to process current data and said a broad new reporting requirement would impose significant costs and privacy risks on well owners. \"Who is going to pay for these meters? Who is going to pay for the annual inspection to make sure they are working properly? Who is going to submit these metering reports to OWRD?\" CJ Nugent, a well driller and board member of the Oregon Groundwater Association, asked, adding that additional staffing would be required and costs could fall on well owners. Eric Schneider, president of the Oregon Groundwater Association, and Kevin Gill, a drilling business owner, testified in opposition and urged more precise targeting rather than a broad requirement.

Agricultural stakeholders asked for limits, clarity and protections. The Oregon Farm Bureau opposed blanket statewide mandates and asked for reporting only when necessary to resolve conflicts and for retention of aggregated reporting to protect individual farm data. Ryan Crabill of the Oregon Farm Bureau said municipalities and irrigation districts provide aggregated reporting today and urged that the same protections continue to avoid exposing individual producers to litigation or activism.

Committee co-chair Representative Owens said the sponsors did not intend to require metering of domestic exempt uses and that further amendment would address that concern. \"It is not co chair Helm and I position to give the department any more authority to measure and report on domestic exempt uses, period,\" Owens told the committee, and the co-chairs promised to work with stakeholders on targeted language.

The department described the statutory foundation for measurement and reporting, noting authorities that date to the 1909 water code and pointing to existing reporting authorities such as ORS 537.099 and the more recent ORS 537.101. Ranciere told the committee that some reporting authorities lack clear civil-penalty enforcement and the bill would help standardize enforcement and procedural expectations through rulemaking.

Other technical concerns raised in testimony included: the cost and availability of measurement devices; whether the department has budget and staffing to process additional data (the governor's recommended budget included funds to scope upgrades to the department's data systems); the need to protect individual user data and provide aggregated public reporting; and the risk of uneven or inconsistent local watermaster implementation. Stakeholders proposed phased rollouts, targeted designations for areas with active study or demonstrated water-supply issues, and clear protections for domestic exempt uses.

The committee timed public testimony because the hearing list grew from a few speakers to more than a dozen; committee members said they expected further amendments and indicated they may hold another public hearing. No formal legislative action was taken at the hearing.

Ending: Sponsors and the department signaled willingness to work on amendments to clarify that the bill will not impose immediate, statewide metering on domestic exempt users, and to address cost-share, data aggregation, privacy protections and enforcement clarity.","House Bill 3419 would clarify and expand state authority to require measurement and reporting of water use across statutes and formalize enforcement and cost-share mechanisms; the bill drew strong support from conservation groups and resistance from well drillers, exempt-well owners and agricultural stakeholders.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6322382,"Oregon committee hears changes to water feasibility grants and project funding rules",1710,74000,1784000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48&start=74&end=1784","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347944-ee0a34e75c5a4985346b2e60b9135e48/thumbnail_74000.jpg","/articles/6322382/Oregon/Oregon-committee-hears-changes-to-water-feasibility-grants-and-project-funding-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322382-e09e0ab7bc3bedf8cfb71e42d3573e19/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145597&Signature=YtvDlWXGB4j1vzgGV3cQCpTgKKIBwTBbV3a7LHrnnALMV~1jHLMqvov0dcd2tgPKJIH0f~VffAl9kqWGjyru0~wBTyJMCdZeAD2TmlP6LO4SD33P8YBYc02s-JRRpuJ-hnFibK1wqz7YSRrGUszPIpbn2wwHTKJEiFG~s6lM11ynEDrIQwK4tNf9QzehqVh8sp~qcLgmGBRLLWyqcSj2E0XHao~pyYnsY-HE6He-pUD-Pgya4QgC083I-~qlrAj90Npr-9vlA9U0MrBeleimwjS3CxZt7bYXXCjT0n2QUD6JEI~i30IGI401w89ZrtMiFjUaHLQ1-ZGiLbENeModJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 3364 would revise two Oregon water funding programs — the feasibility study grants (formerly the water conservation, reuse and storage investment fund) and the Water Project Grants and Loans Program (statutory Water Supply Development Account) — changing eligible activities, matching requirements, prioritization and data requirements, the Oregon Water Resources Department told the committee.

\"House Bill 3,364 makes changes to the water conservation reuse and storage program and the water supply development account,\" Brynn Hudson, legislative coordinator for the Oregon Water Resources Department, told the committee during an informational presentation. Hudson said the department was providing information only and was not taking a formal position on the bill at that time.

The bill would rename the feasibility study grant fund to the Water Feasibility Investment Fund, expand eligible project types to add aquifer recharge and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), streamflow protection or restoration, development of water management and conservation plans and other activities identified by the commission and rule. The bill would remove the $500,000 grant cap and reduce the applicant cost match from 50% to 25% for feasibility awards, aligning the feasibility program more closely with the Water Project Grants and Loans Program, which currently requires a 25% match for implementation-ready projects.

The Water Project Grants and Loans changes described by the department include allowing grant funds to pay for long-term monitoring and compliance with seasonally varying flows (SVFs), providing corrected statutory language to ensure SVF conditions can be applied to the underlying water right rather than only to ASR/AR permits, moving approval of water management and conservation plans (WMCP) to prior to funding decisions rather than application deadlines, and shortening the public comment window for each funding cycle from 60 days to 30 days.

The bill would direct the department to adopt rules establishing a scoring and ranking system to achieve the three public-benefit categories (environmental, social/cultural and economic) and remove detailed scoring criteria from statute. It would also change the role of the Technical Review Team (TRT): TRT would rank and score applications and provide recommendations to the department; the department would make funding recommendations to the Water Resources Commission after public comment; the Commission would make final funding decisions.

Stakeholders stressed that the public-benefit lens remains central. \"I would just note, I think that's a really important part here. This is public money. We need to make sure it remains focused on public benefit,\" Representative Marsh said during committee discussion. Raquel Ranciere, deputy director of strategy and administration for the Water Resources Department, agreed that drafting changes may have led to wording swaps and said committee preferences could be reinserted during amendment: \"I think in looking at the specific language... legislative council replaced scoring and rank with an evaluation system. And so I think it's just a matter of drafting.\"

Users and interest groups offered mixed views. April Snell, executive director of the Oregon Water Resources Congress, said irrigation districts actively use both programs and welcomed revisions but urged that WMCP requirements not become a permanent disincentive for agricultural managers. \"We would prefer that requirement to be removed altogether because we find it to be a disincentive to districts who don't have those plans and otherwise aren't required to have them,\" Snell said. WaterWatch of Oregon said it opposed sections that remove statutory direction to fund projects with the highest public benefit and urged retaining minimum public-benefit scoring criteria that act as a funding floor.

Hudson and department staff provided program history and usage figures: feasibility study grants had been authorized in 2008 and the department has awarded 122 feasibility grants totaling over $9,400,000 since 2009. The Water Project Grants and Loans Program (established 2013 via HB 839) is a competitive program offered twice per year; since 2016 the department has awarded more than $100,000,000 to about 61 projects. The bill would also require the department to report to the Legislature at least once every eight years on four programs: place-based integrated planning, feasibility study grants, water project grants and loans, and the well abandonment/repair/replacement fund.

Committee members and stakeholders asked for clarification about several drafting choices, including the replacement of statutory scoring language with rulemaking directions, the shift in WMCP timing (application deadline to funding decision), and the corrected scope for applying SVFs. The department said it would analyze specific sections in more depth and work with the committee on drafting.

No formal vote occurred during the hearing; the item was presented as informational testimony and moved toward amendment and further work with stakeholders.

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3364 and said it would consider amendments and return the bill for future action; department staff and stakeholders indicated they would work with the committee to clarify public-benefit language, scoring details and points of statutory correction.","The House Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water heard informational testimony and stakeholder comment on House Bill 3364, which would remake eligibility, matching, and scoring rules for two state water grant programs and add reporting to the Legislature.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers hear results from juniper removal pilot and push to expand grants for treatment

Marine Board, outfitters seek fee restructuring to resolve interstate commerce issue

Debate grows over measurement and reporting authority in proposed water data bill

Oregon committee hears changes to water feasibility grants and project funding rules