Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Klein noted that although the Eugene City Charter was clear that EWEB needed the approval of the Eugene <br />City Council for extraterritorial extensions of “water service” there was a difference of opinion as to whether or <br />not the wholesale purchase of water by a city was actually water service or a sale of water. <br />Mr. Klein briefly discussed how the staff-recommended motion would relate to the Lane County Circuit Court’s <br />review of the EWEB contract. <br />Mr. Zelenka expressed his support for the perfection of local water rights but noted his uncertainty regarding <br />EWEB’s proposed water sale to the City of Veneta. <br />Mr. Klein responded to Mr. Zelenka’s comment and stated that the staff-recommended motion had been <br />intended to ensure that sufficient information regarding the EWEB sale would be provided to the Eugene City <br />Council in order that they might make an informed decision regarding the sale. <br />Mr. Klein hoped that the City might schedule the public forum during the month of May and that the subsequent <br />public hearing regarding the EWEB water sale could be scheduled for before the end of June. <br />Mr. Zelenka indicated his understanding that any motions filed by Mr. Klein on behalf of the City would be <br />intended to preserve the right of the City of Eugene to participate as an interested party in EWEB’s water sale to <br />Veneta. Mr. Klein confirmed Mr. Zelenka’s understanding. <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the only way the City could protect local water rights surrounding the EWEB sale to Veneta <br />was through the legal action which Mr. Klein had described. Mr. Klein responded that the course of action he <br />had described was the only course that did not require direct assistance from EWEB. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, briefly described how local water rights might be <br />perfected by demonstrating a real and beneficial use of the water. Ms. Wilson further discussed other ways in <br />which local water rights might be formally perfected for public use. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that municipalities were required to provide <br />water management conservation plans to the State that demonstrated a clear plan for the perfection of local <br />water rights. Mr. Wilson further noted that municipal use water laws had changed in the past few years so that <br />municipalities were required to demonstrate beneficial use within a reasonable timeframe. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, described how water allocations under established and <br />perfected water rights were usually made. She further maintained that EWEB was concerned that it might lose <br />its water rights for the City of Veneta if it did not act quickly to perfect those water rights. <br />Mr. Klein suggested that City staff might ask EWEB to help the City develop a plan for perfecting local water <br />rights as part of the upcoming public forums regarding the EWEB water sale to Veneta. <br />Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon noted that EWEB sought the Lane County Circuit <br />Court's validation on the contract for its proposed water sale to Veneta. He further noted that EWEB's contract <br />might be deemed valid if it was approved by the Eugene City Council. <br />Mr. Ruiz suspected that EWEB's contract with the City of Veneta, if deemed valid by the Lane County Circuit <br />Court, might be cited as a precedent for any future water sales beyond the Eugene city limits. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2010 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />