Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

of that would be. Ms. Wilson said that EWEB would have to hope that there would be water available. She understood that two permits had been applied for on the McKenzie River, which was the only body of its size in Oregon with water still available for appropriation. She reported that there was also an in-stream water right related to water flow; anyone on the other side of that water right had a junior water right. If flow was limited by drought, the State could step in and require junior water right holders, which would include Eugene if it got to the back of the line, to shut off their water. She said that EWEB wanted to both protect its water right and the 1961 date stamp that accompanied it. The only way to do that was to put the water to beneficial use, which could include serving unanticipated growth in Eugene. She said the City would not come close to needing another 25 percent increment for two decades. Councilor Zelenka questioned how many more water sales EWEB would need to make to perfect the water right. City Manager Ruiz indicated staff would return with that information. Councilor Zelenka asked if Veneta could claim a water right on the McKenzie River. Ms. Wilson said yes. However, it would have to build a treatment plant. The City was running that scenario through the triple bottom line tool. Councilor Clark said that EWEB Commissioner John Brown spoke of other rights farther down the river, and asked if there was another municipality with the capacity to sell water to Veneta. Ms. Wilson was not aware of any such municipality but acknowledged she was not aware of all the municipalities with water rights and would have to do more research. Councilor Brown asked Water Master Mattick about the two entities that applied for water rights. Mr. Mattick indicated that a private entity, White Water Ranch, had applied for irrigation rights from the McKenzie River and Goose Creek. That entity could get a contract use for stored water from the BLM and could take that water from the river for irrigation. Water Master Mattick shared information about the State’s water right permit application requirements and emphasized the benefits of certification. He said once a certificate was issued, the State could put no more conditions on it, whereas the right developed under an extension could be conditional. Speaking to Councilor Brown’s question about the deadline for the perfection of water rights, Water Master Mattick said that EWEB’s time frame for perfection, 2074 – 2123, was a time frame beyond what the State typically considered in terms of extensions. He confirmed there was a deadline. The deadline had already been extended multiple times. If EWEB did not secure another extension, the State would certificate the need that had been demonstrated. Water Master Mattick confirmed that there was unallocated water in the McKenzie River and each application would be reviewed and would be subject to a public process. As time went on, it would be harder to secure a permit. He also confirmed there was no other municipality that could sell water to Veneta. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that the matter before the council was not a land use issue so the council did not have to hold the record open. Staff would attach any submitted testimony to the next council agenda item summary related to the item. He suggested that any additional materials be provided to the council by June 21 by 5 p.m. Councilor Taylor believed the “City could take EWEB back if it wanted to.” MINUTES—City Council June 14, 2010 Page 8