Cylvia Hayes’ recent guest column in The Bulletin on Jan. 17 might have sounded an alarm that reverberated throughout Bend and the entire Central Oregon community, but I fear it will fall on deaf ears — the movers and shakers who are championing rapid growth. Unfortunately, those folks are bolstered by what the zoning changes in 1974 termed the “urban growth boundary.”

Earlier, I wrote a guest column for The Bulletin titled, “Don’t Build It; They Can’t Come.” I was perplexed when the column received no negative feedback from anyone. I began to understand when I learned that the UGB mandates that municipalities must maintain a 25-year supply of land to accommodate population increase. This is to be accomplished while protecting farmland and wildlife habitat.

When space for growth goes below this threshold, cities must apply to expand the UGB. Due to rapid population growth in much of Oregon and especially Central Oregon during the past 10 years, cities are commonly and frequently requesting expansion. Most are approved. Recently, Oregon officials have responded to unprecedented growth by allowing cities to apply early and with less red tape to expand urban areas. Bend is currently engaged in this process.

The Department of Land Conservation and Development provided zoning goals for statewide land-use planning that were adopted in 1974 when Oregon’s population was 2 million less than it is today. The emphasis at that time was protecting agricultural land and wildlife habitat at a time of slow population growth. UGBs expanded slowly for many years. It is apparent that a zoning law passed 50 years ago that has been weakened and abused no longer serves the best interests of the land and its inhabitants. It’s time for at least one elected official or a concerned citizenry to insist that the government revisit the mandate of the UGB. It is my fervent hope that planners will soon embrace a paradigm shift, moving from encouraging growth to a construct that upholds local and regional livability to reduce stress on the environment and its inhabitants.

There are many reasons for restricting growth, at least in Central Oregon, where our major aquifer depends on annual snowpack and subsequent spring thaw. The Deschutes aquifer is diminishing annually and is projected to continue this trajectory. Water rights assigned more than 100 years ago have been oversubscribed for at least decades. Hayes’ column made a persuasive argument for doing everything we can to conserve and save our groundwater, including restricting population growth. Wells are running dry, temperatures are increasing, our forests are burning and folks keep moving to Central Oregon to enjoy its natural resources. It’s up to us to do what’s necessary to manage population growth.

Is anyone listening? I hope so. It’s time.

Editor’s Note

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor or a guest column.