Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Wilson's explanation regarding the manner in which the City of Eugene needed to <br />maintain and perfect its local water rights. He further maintained that the staff recommended motion <br />represented a way in which the City might protect its claim for local water rights. <br />Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, described the relationship between the City of Eugene and <br />EWEB with particular emphasis on how that relationship affected the utilities provided by EWEB. Mr. Klein <br />further noted that while EWEB was technically a part of the City of Eugene, under the Eugene City Charter, <br />certain City powers were delegated to EWEB. <br />Mr. Klein specified that the water rights under discussion belonged to the City of Eugene and that EWEB was <br />not an independent legal entity. <br />Mr. Clark asked if EWEB shared Mr. Klein's understanding of the relationship between itself and the City of <br />Eugene. Mr. Klein responded that he had not asked EWEB if it agreed that it was part of the City of Eugene, <br />but that he had identified legal precedent that demonstrated that it was. <br />Mr. Clark recognized that the discussion at hand concerned EWEB's authority with respect to local water rights <br />and whether or not EWEB had the authority to sell water outside the Eugene city limits without the approval of <br />the Eugene City Council. <br />Mr. Poling asked if Mr. Klein's plan to file court pleadings would establish a good faith effort to perfect the City <br />of Eugene's water rights. Ms. Wilson replied that such legal action would not solely perfect the City's water <br />rights but would demonstrate to State officials that the City intended to perfect its water rights. Ms. Wilson <br />restated that the City needed to put water to a beneficial use before the rights concerning the water would be <br />perfected. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a comment from Mr. Poling, stated that she did not believe it was likely that the City <br />of Eugene would lose its water rights as a result of any legal actions relating to EWEB's water sale to Veneta. <br />Ms. Ortiz indicated her frustration that EWEB staff was not more directly involved in the council's discussion. <br />She hoped that EWEB representatives would be provided the opportunity to present their rationale for their <br />current course of action with respect to the water sale to the City of Veneta. <br />Ms. Ortiz supported EWEB's efforts to provide water to the citizens of Veneta. <br />Mr. Zelenka indicated his disappointment with the EWEB Board of Directors for their reluctance to involve the <br />Eugene City Council in their proposed contract with the City of Veneta. <br />Mr. Zelenka briefly discussed his understanding of the City of Eugene's current water rights and asked for <br />further clarification from Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson replied that municipal water rights functioned differently <br />from individual and agricultural water rights in that municipalities normally were tasked to develop a long-term <br />water management conservation plan as part of their water rights that was required to be continually updated. <br />Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that he had not yet discussed the water sale to <br />Veneta with EWEB's attorneys but generally understood that EWEB intended to sell the water wholesale to the <br />City of Veneta rather than directly to consumers. <br />Mr. Brown agreed with Mr. Klein's determination that the authority regarding EWEB's proposed sale ultimately <br />rested with the Eugene City Council. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2010 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />