Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Fuels Disposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rancher describes wildfire losses, urges county action on fuel-disposal options; staff points to Project Wildfire and county forester
Summary
At public comment, a rural resident urged a streamlined program for disposing hazardous fuels from properties of 5–100 acres; county staff and commissioners recommended connecting the resident with Project Wildfire and the county forester and noted landfill capacity and cost considerations.
A longtime rural resident told the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 3 that current disposal fees and logistics discourage fuel-reduction work and urged a low-cost, year-round disposal program for owners of 5–100 acre properties.
Michael Paulson described buying equipment, chipping material and hauling “about 100 loads” to the transfer station during fuel-reduction windows. He said paying roughly $36 per load at the transfer station discourages additional work and proposed a nominal annual fee—he suggested $100—allowing property owners to drop off fuels year-round with proof of enrollment.
County staff responded that Project Wildfire, the county natural resources office and the county forester already work with neighborhoods on organized disposal, including neighborhood dumpsters and research into options such as air-curtain burners for on-site disposal. Staff offered to connect Paulson with the county forester and Project Wildfire participants to discuss pilot approaches.
Commissioners acknowledged competing priorities: reducing hazardous fuels and encouraging defensible space while the county operates a landfill that is filling and must be financially sustained. One commissioner noted a $585,000 program through the soil and water district for projects sized to 100 acres and suggested neighbors could band together to reach program thresholds.
Paulson also reported he had spoken with the BLM about buffers on adjacent federal lands and that the BLM’s informal limit on removable material was small. Commissioners and staff encouraged more coordination with county forester staff, Project Wildfire, and solid-waste staff to evaluate disposal options that do not unduly burden the county’s solid-waste operations.
