A proposal to “super-site” a rural waste processing facility in Oregon’s Lane County is raising questions about which projects are chosen to sidestep state land use regulations.

Allowing the facility to bypass land use procedures would speed up its construction, but critics say the project shouldn’t receive preferential treatment simply because it’s supported by certain government officials.

“We have people coming to you saying: ‘We don’t want to follow our own rules,’” said Rep. Boomer Wright, R-Coos Bay. “If we’re going to make changes, we should do it for everybody. Why have rules at all?”

Last month, a land use hearings officer denied a special use permit for the “CleanLane” facility, which is proposed for a rural industrial zone in Goshen, Ore.

Proponents say the facility would use cutting-edge technology to sort through garbage, removing recyclable materials for sale and food waste for biogas energy — thus extending the life of a local landfill.

However, neighbors and others who oppose the facility say it’d be built in a wetland that’s prone to flooding and would violate land use rules that everyone else is expected to follow.

After the permit was rejected because waste-related facilities are prohibited in the rural industrial zone, supporters introduced a bill allowing Lane County to approve the project without following regular land use procedures.

A recent legislative hearing on that proposal, House Bill 3971, has revived a long-running debate among lawmakers about which projects are worthy of such “super-siting.”

Lane County and other supporters of the facility claim it’s justified in this instance because land use regulations could not have anticipated how waste processing technology would progress.

They also argue the project would have broader beneficial impacts for the Willamette Valley by freeing up landfill capacity for local communities.

The permit’s rejection is now being reviewed by the state’s Land Use Board of Appeals, but if that challenge fails, the county will likely have to rewrite its land use regulations, which would be subject to more litigation, said Rob Bovett, county counsel for Lane County.

“This is all about timing,” he said. “If you want this to happen sooner rather than later, this is the legislation to make that happen.”

But critics of HB 3971 argue that virtually all applicants for land use permits would like to expedite their projects, yet can’t rely on a “legislative shortcut” because of their political connections.

“My constituents face land use challenges regularly. They would not be able to build a simple warehouse on this property, let alone a major trash sorting facility,” said Ryan Ceniga, a Lane County commissioner opposed to the CleanLane permit.

“Farmers, foresters and small business owners are at constant struggle and are forced to navigate the complexity of building in Lane County without special exemptions,” he said.

Supporters counter that the bill wouldn’t directly approve the project, merely allow Lane County to issue a permit, and that a recent amendment would require a public hearing before that decision is made.

“We’re authorizing local control,” said Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene. “We as a Legislature should not be deciding the pros and cons of the project.”