Irreconcilable differences.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Oregon may have a no-fault divorce law, but the end of any marriage that was once happy and fruitful is cause for regret. So it is with the breakup of Springfield and Eugene as the Legislature prepares to end joint control of the two cities' urban growth boundary. Eugene, in particular, will gain nothing from the decree of dissolution.

House Bill 3337, creating separate urban growth boundaries for the two cities, was opposed by only five representatives, three of them from Eugene. The only dissenting vote Tuesday on the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee was cast by Sen. Floyd Prozanski of Eugene. Outside Eugene, support for HB 3337, introduced by Springfield lawmakers at the request of the Oregon Home Builders Association, is nearly universal.

The bill stems from a dispute over inventories of land available for development - Springfield wants one and Eugene doesn't. Springfield is moving ahead with a survey, and its preliminary findings show that the city needs to add 1,000 acres to its supply of land available for new housing. Under current land use rules, such an expansion of the urban growth boundary could not occur without Eugene's approval.

Such approval would not come easily. Eugene's city government strongly favors intensive development of land within the existing growth boundary before moving the line. Earlier this year, Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy broke a 4-4 tie on the City Council to oppose a land inventory of the kind being conducted by Springfield. State land use laws require that cities maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land within their urban growth boundaries. An inventory is likely to show that Eugene lacks an adequate supply, so opposing a study is one way to avoid being forced to extend the boundary.

It's a shame to see joint planning founder because of a refusal to obtain information. Springfield and Eugene are a single metropolitan area, served by a single transportation network and a single wastewater treatment system. Opportunities are plentiful for cooperation, even integration, on matters ranging from public safety to parks. Decisions about growth in either city will affect the other, and it's sensible that those decisions be made in concert.

Springfield leaders, however, feel that Eugene is holding their city back. The Springfield City Council voted unanimously Monday to begin preparations to withdraw from the Metro Plan - the regional planning enterprise for both cities and Lane County - if HB 3337 is defeated. Given the lopsided voted in the Legislature so far, defeat is unlikely. Lawmakers are convinced that Spring- field has a legitimate gripe.

HB 3337 does more than split the two cities' urban growth boundary. It also requires that each city conduct a residential land study within two years. Piercy testified before the Senate committee Tuesday that the provision amounts to an unfunded mandate. There's a bigger issue: If Eugene had an up-to-date residential land inventory, the urban growth boundary split would lose its justification. Such an inventory would almost certainly reveal shortages of buildable land in both cities, and the two cities could address their common problem jointly.

That was the reason for having a shared growth boundary all along. It may be too late for Eugene to voluntarily undertake a study that will otherwise be forced upon it by the state. If that's the case, Eugene will have gained nothing by resisting a land inventory, and joint planning for growth will be a casualty of its stubbornness.