05/24/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

D. Liti~ation re1arding Bethel Water District--Assistant Manager noted in t e early 960's the Bethel Water District was absorbed by EWEB by a contract that said EWEB would continue to provide service. A map was distributed outlining the area in concern. In an effort to clarify the boundaries to be served, EWEB, and the Lane County Boundary Commission have been involved in litigation. The issue involves whether or not the contract and its obligations require water service no matter how the land is zoned or used. Land in concern was west of Highway 99, which is agricultural in use), and there are a number of City policies that have changed since the contract was signed. Staff feels there is need to seek some better balance between the contract and general City policies. Staff was asking Council's authorization to seek a modification of the Court of Appeals' decision. Cost would be $3,000 to $5,000 in attorney time. . There were several options open for Council: As separate parties, seek a rehearing; address the issue in the 1990 Update to ensure the land in question remains in agricultural use; or City could seek administrative review of Lane County actions regarding land use. He said none is exclusive and all three could be pursued simul- taneously. If the Court of Appeals' decision remains, the City's authority to limit water extension might be reduced. Thus staff would like to seek modication of the opinion and perhaps pursue insurance that the land remain agricultural in use. Mr. Delay wondered what EWEB had been failing to argue that was ~ important to the City. Assistant Manager said EWEB feels bound ~ and liable under the contract should property owners sue if they fail to provide water service in the entire district. Lane County Boundary Commission argued that it has State-mandated authority to control extension of water services. The court decision was in favor of EWEB. However, the City wishes the court to clarify for it the bounds of the contract versus various City policies, so the Citj is not in a position of extending water service to agricultural land. The language in the present contract seems to say that any part of that land has to be served at any time. There needs to be modi- fication of such broad language for liability, with a balancing of interest to preserve the contract rights but protect the author- ity of the City Council over water extension. This would be the most direct way to accomplish such, rather than on a case-by-case basis. He said Council's practice of controlling urbanization included the water extension policy and land-use controls. The decision, as it stands, would remove the water extension policy from having any application within the confines of the Bethel Water District. - 5/24/78--2 ~o