Amendments to a groundwater quality bill have satisfied some opponents, but have also turned former supporters against the measure. (Capital Press file photo)

Revisions to an Oregon groundwater quality bill have nullified some opposition to the proposal but also convinced certain early proponents to stop supporting it.

A recently-approved amendment would not change the core objective of Senate Bill 1154 — to better prevent aquifer contamination and improve the state government’s response to such pollution.

However, the latest version of the legislation, which is a session priority of Gov. Tina Kotek, removes some of the new powers that state agencies would’ve been granted under the original language of the proposal.

These changes have persuaded the Oregon Farm Bureau and other critics to shift their position to “neutral” on SB 1154, which they initially accused of enabling government overreach.

“I want to acknowledge on the record that the governor’s office has heard our concerns and has come an awful long way,” said Greg Addington, the group’s executive director, during a recent legislative hearing.

But revisions that won praise from the Oregon Farm Bureau have provoked condemnation from some of SB 1154’s strongest early proponents, who say they’d rather have lawmakers scrap the bill entirely than move forward with the latest version.

The bill’s original version would’ve addressed problems that led to Oregon’s “systemic failure” to remedy nitrate pollution in the Umatilla basin, said Kaleb Lay, policy and research director at the Oregon Rural Action nonprofit.

“Those provisions were in this bill in earlier stages and they need to be put back,” Lay testified before the Senate Rules Committee, which recently approved the amendment. “Our position at this point is that we have withdrawn our support.”

It’s disappointing that lawmakers have caved in to pressure from opponents of the original version of SB 1154, who have relied on false information and fear-mongering, said Amy van Saun, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety nonprofit.

Without provisions requiring state agencies to exert their regulatory authority under certain circumstances, which were the “heart” of the original bill, the amended version will not be effective in preventing or correcting groundwater contamination, she said.

“The latest amendment appears to be so watered down that it fails to achieve the goals set out by Gov. Kotek and the members of this chamber,” van Saun said.

Among the changes to SB 1154, the bill has imposed additional conditions on state government inspections of private septic systems, which can contribute to aquifer pollution if they’re defective.

Originally, the proposal would’ve allowed inspectors from the Department of Environmental Quality to enter private property “at reasonable times” to examine such sewage disposal systems.

The amended version requires that DEQ provide landowners with appropriate notice of an inspection and an opportunity to negotiate the scheduling.

If a landowner refuses an inspection, the agency would have to obtain a court order to enter the property under the amended bill.

Under the new version, county governments would lose the ability to prohibit residential development within “groundwater quality management areas,” where pollution has occurred.

Most of the new authorities granted to the Oregon Water Resources Department were also removed by the amendment, such as the power to curtail new well-drilling due to groundwater quality concerns.

“It has evolved pretty considerably,” said Chandra Ferrari, the governor’s natural resources advisor.

The proposal still retains the same basic concepts of a “yellow light,” meant to identify potential contamination early and prevent it from growing worse, and a “red light,” under which state agencies would work together to remedy pollution problems.

Ferrari said that SB 1154 will strengthen the “yellow light” steps available to the state government, whose authority to curb pollution in its early stages is “not terribly well defined” or useful in existing statutes.

“This is an opportunity to avoid a more stringent designation,” she said.