As Oregon legislators consider the possibility of allowing a nuclear reactor in Umatilla County, opponents rallied at the State Capitol this week to voice their concerns.

In 1980, Oregon voters approved Measure 7, a statewide ban on building new nuclear reactors. But House Bill 2410 would exempt Umatilla County from the ban and allow local voters to decide on building a small modular reactor.

Kelly Campbell, policy director of the environmental advocacy group Columbia Riverkeeper, said what the state actually needs is more clean energy alternatives.

"This is a new program that costs new money that we don't have," Campbell contended. "Especially with this kind of budget forecast, the idea of wasting money on a 'pie in the sky' nuclear fantasy when really, we need more solar, more wind, more battery storage, more energy efficiency."

On Monday environmental groups, tribal leaders and northeast Oregon community groups held a No Nuclear Day of Action, including meetings with state legislators.

Small modular reactors are built in factories then shipped to sites. They typically produce 300 megawatts or fewer of electricity per unit. Industry experts cited their lower cost over existing gigawatt-scale reactors. But a 2022 study found the units produce a greater volume of waste, which is also more reactive.

The bill would allow high-level radioactive waste to be stored on site so long as the federal operating license is in force. It does not resolve the issue of permanent storage. Campbell noted Umatilla County is already one of the most polluted places in the state.

"It is somewhat of a sacrifice zone," Campbell stressed. "It's seen as a place that you could do things like this.
It's a place where people have nitrates in their drinking water, way over the EPA limits. It's a place where things get dumped."

Measure 7 forbids new nuclear reactors until two conditions are met: a national waste repository has been built and Oregon voters statewide approve a new nuclear plant site certificate.

Environmental groups say Oregon's new groundwater law, meant to curb pollution, has been diluted to the point they can no longer support it.

Industrial agriculture has contaminated parts of Eastern Oregon's groundwater with nitrates from fertilizers and manure, putting residents, many of whom rely on wells for drinking water, at risk.

Kaleb Lay, director of policy and research for the group Oregon Rural Action, said earlier bill versions would have protected residents and held polluters accountable.

"Unfortunately, as the legislative session went on, we saw industry groups and big ag groups get more and more heavily involved," Lay pointed out. "We really saw the governor concede many of the really important points in this bill."

Nitrates are increasingly linked to cancer, miscarriages and birth defects. Gov. Tina Kotek said the new bill gives state agencies more authority to intervene in Oregon's contaminated groundwater areas.

Jim Klipfel moved to Boardman six years ago and discovered his well was contaminated with nitrates after a neighbor warned him not to drink from the hose. Now, he relies on delivered water as officials work on connecting residents to city water. He said there are more stories of illness in the community than average.

"Scientifically, yes, I know this can't be 100% tied to the nitrates, but it's a pretty huge freaking coincidence," Klipfel contended. "People getting cancer, people having miscarriages, people losing farm animals, horses, cows."

A 39-page amendment to the bill removed key pollution control measures, Lay explained, including a mandate for agencies to review and tighten groundwater pollution permits. He argued the industry has too much influence over the law.

"We need to shift that power back where it belongs," Lay stressed. "That is, to the people who are on the front lines of their pollution. It's to the rural working class, low-income residents."

A report from January showed nitrate levels continued to rise across the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area in Morrow and Umatilla counties. About 40% of tested wells exceeded safe drinking water limits.


get more stories like this via email

Sometimes called the original "ecosystem engineers," beavers and the techniques they use are guiding conservationists in New Mexico to protect scarce water resources.

Defenders of Wildlife is working with a team to install human-made "beaver dam analogs" along two tributaries of the Upper Rio Grande.

Peggy Darr, New Mexico representative for the advocacy group, said like beaver dams, analogs cause water to pond, allowing surrounding soils to soak up moisture during high flows, which restores habitat and encourages beavers to move in.

"The reason that we want to have as many beavers as the systems can hold is because they help keep rivers running year-round, they help to mitigate fire hazards, they help make water cleaner, they also help to reduce damage from flash flooding," Darr outlined.

A recent survey by the group showed a much higher concentration of beaver dams in the northern part of New Mexico, highlighting a need for targeted conservation in less populated regions.

In the Southwest, many perennial rivers now run dry during parts of the year, discouraging the growth of trees, providing a food source for beavers and the wood they use to build their dams. Darr noted the restoration work includes community and tribal outreach about the importance of a nonlethal beaver/human coexistence.

"If you rip out a beaver dam, beavers can rebuild it overnight sometimes, so you'll spend the rest of your life ripping out beaver dams," Darr pointed out. "And if you kill the beavers, it's like putting up a vacancy sign for another beaver pair, and eventually other beavers will move in."

Massive eradication of beavers began in the 1800s, leading to river and stream degradation in New Mexico and across the nation, often made worse by climate change. Darr emphasized conservation tools and public awareness can be beneficial.

"Beavers do millions of dollars of work for free," Darr stressed. "Beaver coexistence and beaver restoration, and just beavers in general, have become high priority for conservation, especially across the West."

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, are banned from the Buffalo National River watershed.

That's after the Arkansas Legislative Council issued a moratorium, outlawing large-scale swine operations on land surrounding the river.

Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said it's good news for them - but he said he's concerned about other bodies of water around the state that don't have the same protection.

"We've got lots of high-quality recreational streams in the state that deserve to be protected, but our by-laws restrict us to working within the Buffalo River Watershed," said Watkins. "While we would support changes to the regulation, we can't legally take up the leadership role."

Members of the alliance had been fighting for the moratorium since 2013 when C&H Hog Farm opened in the watershed.

Legislators recently passed Act 921, which allows farms to operate anywhere in the state. The Buffalo River is exempt from the legislation.

C&H Hog Farm shut down in 2020, after pressure from environmentalists who said waste from the operation was contaminating surrounding land and water.

Watkins said changes to state rules, such as not contacting local leaders when a company submits an application for a liquid animal waste permit, could impact other rivers and streams.

"Other places in the state are not going to have public notice," said Watkins, "and they're not going to have access to critical information to be able to see if a facility is being built next to them or to see if it's operating properly over time. So, those are our big concerns."

He urged Arkansans to monitor the actions of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environmental Quality.

"Be vigilant, pay attention and push for better transparency," said Watkins. "To push the ag department to at least put up a listserv. If they had a listserv where people could sign up for it and they could be guaranteed that they would receive a notice every time an application came up. "

The Arkansas Farm Bureau and the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association argue the moratoriums are government overreach.





get more stories like this via email