Lane County staff on July 9 told the Board of County Commissioners that hundreds of small, often fee‑based special utility districts that provide water and sanitation services are under financial and operational strain, and that the county is weighing a set of options — from technical assistance to standing up a county utility service district — to prevent public‑health and community collapse.

Jason Harris, Lane County’s community economic development manager, presented the overview and told commissioners the county focused on the roughly 117 utility districts that serve residential communities. “Special districts, they are effectively a form of local government, when there is no local government in place,” Harris said, noting most districts rely almost exclusively on service fees and that only seven of the county’s more than 400 special utility districts have a tax levy function.

Harris said the Oregon Health Authority lists 320 permitted water districts in Lane County; of those, about 98 are residential serving, about 122 are commercial, 47 serve parks and campgrounds, 41 serve schools and churches, and 12 are city systems. He said there are 88 sanitation districts in the county, with 19 serving residential groups. Harris and other staff cited a recurring pattern: small customer bases, aging infrastructure, limited ability to raise fees, scarce certified operators, and growing regulatory and environmental burdens.

The presentation named recent local examples where county staff provided sustained help: Dexter, Blue River and Mapleton. Harris credited Rob Woodard, Lane County Public Works’ special districts project manager, and regional partners such as the Governor’s Office Regional Solutions team, Business Oregon, Willamette Partners and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation for technical and grant-application assistance. He also cited federal programs administered by EPA and USDA, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and FEMA funding, and emergency support by regional utility EWEB.

Harris described a recent legislative change — House Bill 3910 — that he said was sponsored with Representative Wright’s assistance and signed by the governor. “It eased the requirements of water districts and [allowed them] to merge their sanitation districts and bring on sanitation powers,” Harris said, citing Mapleton as a motivating example. He said the traditional process for dissolving and forming districts can take about two years, which some communities cannot afford to wait through.

Commissioners pressed on specific concerns. Commissioner Burke described recurring local calls from volunteers who run districts and said she is hearing widespread anxiety about retirements and a lack of new board members: “They don't — they're kinda wanna retire and they're worried that there's nobody else in the community to take their spot,” Burke said. Commissioner Farr and others suggested consolidation with adjacent utilities, a council‑of‑governments model or a county services district as possible longer‑term responses.

County staff described a range of assistance that has been used or pursued: grant writing and application support, engineering and preliminary assessment reports, contracting arrangements where an established district provides staffing to an adjacent district, land‑use work to enable increased density and user bases, and state legislative advocacy. Harris said the county is working with the University of Oregon Policy Lab on a countywide assessment of which districts are at risk, starting with sanitation districts.

No formal action was taken by the board at the July 9 meeting; staff requested guidance and feedback. Harris said the county’s next steps are to complete the technical, financial and management health assessments of sanitation districts, then move to water districts, while Land Management concurrently evaluates community overlay zoning where appropriate. He said the county is also considering an education campaign to inform districts about available resources and “best practices.”

Ending: Commissioners broadly supported continued county involvement and farther study, but they also raised cost and liability concerns about potential county takeover or county‑run utility authority. Commissioner Burke and others cautioned that a county utility service district could increase costs for low‑income residents because county administration would likely mean paid staff replacing volunteer managers. Harris and staff said those tradeoffs are part of the Policy Lab’s planned analysis and that staff will return with more detailed findings and options.