Opponents of a rural water facility near Portland have convinced an Oregon land use board that the project’s natural resource effects weren’t sufficiently evaluated.

In 2023, a county hearings officer “improperly limited” a review of the facility’s impacts, approving the project based on “inadequate findings” that must now be reconsidered, the land use ruling said.

“The hearings officer misconstrued the community use natural resources criterion and, based on that misconstruction, failed to adopt adequate findings supported by substantial evidence,” according to the state’s Land Use Board of Appeals.

The ruling effectively overturns Multnomah County’s approval of the project at the request of the Portland Water Bureau, which must now either correct the shortcomings identified by LUBA or appeal its decision.

Opponents of the facility are now asking the county to issue a “stop work order” because the project cannot proceed “without a valid land use approval.”

Construction of the facility, which would filter up to 135 million gallons of drinking water daily, is slated for a 94-acre site in a “mixed use agriculture” zone, though associated pipelines would also pass through “exclusive farm use” land with stricter restrictions.

Because the facility is a “community service use” that’s not located in a “significant environmental concern” area for wildlife habitat, the hearings officer determined it complies with county protections for natural resources.

This conclusion was erroneous because “significant environmental concern” designations are not “the only way natural resources are identified or protected” under county rules, according to LUBA.

Opponents are correct that the project’s other natural resource implications must also be evaluated, beyond just those within “significant environmental concern” areas, the ruling said.

“On remand, the hearings officer should determine whether any natural resources will be affected by the community service use and must find that the proposed use will not adversely affect those natural resources,” LUBA said.

Though the project’s critics prevailed on this point, LUBA rejected numerous other legal arguments against the facility made by individual neighbors and local community groups, as well as the Oregon Association of Nurseries, the Multnomah County Farm Bureau and the 1000 Friends of Oregon nonprofit.

During oral arguments last year, much of the discussion focused on whether the project’s construction impacts will be severe enough to violate land use regulations.

Critics claimed that “five to seven years of construction is not temporary,” as it would have permanent impacts for nurseries who go out of business due to traffic delays and other disruptions.

The Portland Water Bureau countered that blocking the project based on construction activities would be a “massive departure from land use law as we know it,” under which proposals are evaluated solely based on their long-term effects.

LUBA has now ruled that “the county knows how to regulate construction-related impacts or activity where it intends to do so,” while excluding such short-term considerations from the scope of the land use review doesn’t violate local requirements or the case law governing agricultural protections.

“The hearings officer did not misconstrue the applicable law in concluding that the county was not required to consider construction impacts under the community use criteria or the state statutory farm impacts test,” the ruling said.