OUR VIEW LOGO (NEW)

One of the reasons we vote for public officials — well, at least in olden days before every decision had to be viewed through a partisan prism — was the notion that our leaders would make their decisions based on the evidence presented, acting for the better interests of their community.

What, then, should we take away from the Jackson County Board of Commissioners unanimous decision to approve a rezoning request that would expand a quarry operation near Eagle Point — despite the opposition of county planning officials, private citizens and a state agency?

The quarry, owned by Freel & Associates of Medford, requested rezoning that would allow an additional 324 acres of aggregate removal be allowed on its site — a total property, the company predicted, that could produce enough crushed rock to be used for centuries.

The 1,343-acre property currently has 155 of its acres zoned for aggregate removal, but the action by commissioners designates hundreds of additional acres on the property for the same use.

On the surface, not a bad idea. But, digging a little deeper, opponents to the request found reasons to want the commissioners to deny rezoning.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, citing the property’s status as a “winter range habitat,” said that the quarry expansion would endanger the deer and elk population that populate the area, as well as negatively impact other natural resources.

ODFW also noted that there’s more than 500 acres outside of winter range designation in the northern part of the county that’s already zoned for aggregate resources.

Jackson County’s own Planning Commission followed suit, narrowly voting 3-2 to recommend that the rezoning request be denied, acknowledging ODFW as the “leading local authority” on habitat and resources in the area, adding that its staff had found the proposal failed to meet statewide planning goals.

A half-dozen Eagle Point residents spoke at November hearing on the proposal, raising concerns beyond the potential impact on natural resources — including damage to air and water quality, monitoring and oversight of the mining operation and the potential loss of property values.

And while not taking an official stance for or against the proposal, a representative of the Oregon Hunters Association told the commissioners about the importance of the area in regards to wildlife and habitat.

Despite these arguments, the rezoning request was approved.

This issue isn’t over. ODFW might appeal the decision. Site plans need approval from the county and state. The state departments of Environmental Quality and Transportation must also grant their approvals.

Perhaps the commissioners were swayed by the mining company’s arguments that operations already were tightly regulated and proposals to replant the pit floors and fund winter range enhancement projects.

Perhaps the board as a whole was in step with Commissioner Rick Dyer, who said he had independently researched the issue and decided that conditions placed on the company would ensure both priorities would be maintained.

“We can have (wildlife habitat and rock quarrying) exist together,” he said.

Or perhaps that after listening to ODFW, the county planners, the operation’s neighbors and the hunters association, the commissioners felt the arguments against the expansion weren’t enough to reject the request.

Making such decisions is what they get paid to do, and why we elect them.