County counsel says legal path is unclear as commissioners debate appealing state wildfire hazard map

The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners debated whether to file an administrative appeal of Oregon’s draft wildfire-hazard mapping and discussed complementary steps the county could take to help property owners, while County Counsel said a local-government appeal is legally possible but not guaranteed to succeed.

The board’s discussion opened with a presentation of map statistics and an appeal template referenced from the Oregon Department of Forestry. Staff noted Deschutes County has a large number of parcels in the statewide mapping exercise and suggested filing an appeal “on behalf of properties located in Deschutes County” to raise attention to mapping errors and methodology. County Counsel Dave Doyle told the board that an appeal by a local government is not definitively barred by administrative rules but that legal questions remain about standing and procedural proof. “We can't say unequivocally either way that you absolutely can or you absolutely can't,” Doyle said. “If the county were inclined to do it, we'd want a lot of disclaimers and publicity that ... folks should fill out their own appeals for their own individual properties.”

Commissioners and others at the meeting expressed differing views about the usefulness of an appeal versus pursuing other wildfire-risk measures. One commissioner urged the board to focus on measures that directly reduce fire risk and increase defensible space rather than spending time solely on contesting the map. “We need requirements to get to the percentage of homes, with defensible space that will actually make a difference,” a board member said during the discussion.

Other commissioners argued an appeal would raise visibility and public awareness; county staff and legislators had shared data indicating many county properties are included in the draft high-risk designations. A commissioner also said numerous individual appeals had already been filed by property owners and that a county-level filing could amplify constituent concerns.

At the end of discussion a commissioner moved “support of the wildland urban interface appeal form on behalf of 21,058 property owners” and another commissioner seconded the motion; the transcript records the motion and the second but does not record a formal roll-call vote. Following discussion the board asked staff to draft a press release describing the county’s actions and to return the draft for review. County Counsel advised members that individual property owners should still submit appeals for their own parcels if they intend to seek formal review.

The board also discussed related legislative issues: commissioners referenced Senate Bill 762 and state-level programs created to fund defensible-space work, and some members warned against undoing programs that fund community-scale mitigation and support vulnerable residents. The board then moved on to other agenda items.