Senate committee hears Curry County carve‑out for Port Orford development, water cap and permit fast‑track

Senate Bill 10 47, as replaced by a dash-2 amendment, would require Curry County to expedite permits related to operation or land use for specified development north of Port Orford and authorize the county to waive fees or take other reasonable actions to accelerate review, the committee heard on March 19.

The amendment also allows water supply wells to be sited on the tract of land and establishes water use as an exempt category with a total withdrawal cap of 600 gallons per minute, subject to monitoring and reporting, committee staff explained at the hearing.

Senator David Brock Smith, whose district includes Curry and Coos counties, framed the measure as an economic development carve‑out for a long‑planned development near Port Orford. “This is my community that I live in,” Senator Brock Smith said, describing local declines in school enrollment and the project’s potential to bring jobs and workforce housing.

Multiple local residents and former county officials testified in support of the bill and described prolonged permitting delays in Curry County. Becky Crockett, Curry County’s former planning director, said the county currently lacks staff and has had “cases of lost applications, erroneous zoning interpretations” and permit delays of “up to a year.” She and others said the project has more than a decade of local planning, secured financing and could provide workforce housing.

Supporters also offered technical testimony on groundwater testing. Jonathan Williams, owner of Alpine Environmental Consultants, summarized a recent hydrogeologic evaluation based on two new on‑site wells and constant‑rate aquifer tests. Williams reported pumping rates of “137 gallons per minute in one well and 211 gallons a minute in another well,” and said his monitored observation wells, located about 1,000 feet away, showed no measurable drawdown during eight hours of pumping. Williams concluded the data do not suggest significant impacts to nearby wells or to adjacent wetlands.

Opponents did not appear on the record during the March 19 hearing; Senator Golden raised an equity concern about using statewide general fund resources for a county with low property tax rates. “As an equity issue,” Golden said, he questioned whether the state should prioritize special projects for one county when other counties face similar economic distress.

Committee chair and staff reminded members that written testimony remains open through the Friday filing deadline; the bill attracted extensive local verbal support at the March 19 hearing and proponents indicated they would submit maps and additional materials for the record.

No committee vote was taken on SB 10 47 at the March 19 hearing.