Item 2C: Ratification of IGR Committee Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling said that it would be interesting to see what happened. He mentioned that he was on the Travel Lane County board and could say without a doubt that without organizations like it, tourism money would not be in the state in the first place. He said that his vote would depend on how the bill would be written. K. Priority AA – Recapitalize state municipal infrastructure funds to fully meet local demand and Priority BB – Protect existing and future water rights from conditions that would prevent municipali- ties from meeting current of future demands Mr. Poling asked for more history on priority AA, “Recapitalize state municipal infrastructure funds to fully meet local demand” and on priority BB, “Protect existing and future water rights from conditions that would prevent municipalities from meeting current or future demands.” Ms. Wilson iterated that at this time, municipalities were required to submit their water management conser- vation plans and because of a lawsuit that was filed in 2005, the State of Oregon was currently looking at the issue of hording of water. The state was putting additional restrictions on municipal water right holders for water right permits for municipal or quasi-municipal use. The State of Oregon currently had a permit that had been applied for on the McKenzie River for 34 cubic feet per second (CFS). The state would issue that permit to the Willamette Water Company for quasi-municipal use, but would put a restriction on the amount of flow that would be required in the summertime, so much so that in the summertime, that water right would be shut off. The problems municipalities were having was that there was a 20-year planning window, but municipalities could not plan for 20 years – they needed to plan for much longer. However, some believed those water rights needed to be perfected within five years, which did not allow for municipal planning. This concept was to work with the Water Resources Department to make sure municipalities had the flexibility to do long-term planning for their water needs so they did not lose water rights permits applied for. She said that there had been a lot of talk of getting in the “back of the line.” There was no “back of the line,” she explained – the COE could get back in line but the chances that the state would issue another per- mit for even half the amount of water that existed in the COE’s1961 permit without restrictions (where wa- ter would still be available in the summertime) were slim. There were 208 water rights on the McKenzie today that were applied for and granted after the 1961 permit. This meant that if the COE got in line tomor- row, we would be number 209. Mr. Poling said he would like to put priority BB on the top of the list of the CCIGR's priorities suggested to the LOC. Mr. Poling mentioned priority AA. Ms. Wilson said that this referred to the state revolving fund. During the last regular session in 2009, the legislature had shored that fund up, but it was still significantly below what it needed to be in order to supply municipalities with the amount of funds necessary to keep their infrastructures going. For example, EWEB expected to lose an average of about seven percent over the next 20 years through evaporation due to deteriorating infrastructure. This revolving fund provided funds to municipalities in order to keep their in- frastructure up to date. She said that this had been a priority of the LOC. Mr. Poling stated that he thought priority AA should also be included in the CCIGR's recommended priori- ties to the LOC. He said that this priority addressed not only drinking water but also wastewater. Metro- politan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was going through a major facilities upgrade as part of their 20-year master plan. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 30, 2010 Page 6