New Search
Jim Johnson December 11, 2001 Page 2 <br /> into the City's stormwater system. Where the state intends to preempt, the state legislature can do <br /> so explicitly. For example, ORS 455.040 preempts local ordinances with respect to state building <br /> codes, stating: "The state building code shall be applicable and uniform throughout the state ... and <br /> no municipality shall enact or enforce any ordinance ... relating to the same matters encompassed <br /> by the state building code ... ". The statutory provisions related to CAFOs do not contain any such <br /> explicit language, or any language even suggesting an implicit preemption. <br /> Moreover, the administrative rules adopted by the Department of Environmental Quality <br /> (DEQ) and the Department of Agriculture likewise do not contain any explicit nor implicit <br /> preemptions. Indeed, DEQ's administrative rules expressly provide that a permit for a CAFO is <br /> subject to local ordinances. OAR 340 -51- 080(5) states: <br /> "(5) Approval by the Department of Environmental Quality of a confined feeding or <br /> holding operation does not relieve the applicant from his obligation to comply with <br /> other pertinent federal, state or local statutes, regulations or ordinances." <br /> Based on DEQ's administrative rule, as well as the City's home rule powers, we conclude <br /> that even if the Fairgrounds obtained a CAFO permit, the Fairgrounds still could not discharge <br /> polluted or contaminated stormwater into Amazon Channel in violation of City code. <br /> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. <br /> HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. - <br /> CITY ATTORNEYS <br /> Alip <br /> GI ; nn • in <br /> GK/gb <br /> R:\EUGENE- gb \CITYOP \cafo perm op.wpd <br />