Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor spoke to the pros and cons of the proposed water contract. Speaking to the question of whether the sale hurt Eugene’s water supply, he pointed out that the contract helped to perfect EWEB’s water right and made more water available. If Eugene suddenly needed the water, EWEB could cancel the contract. He suggested the contract would benefit both parties. Mr. Pryor also wanted to move the issue forward to a public hearing. He wanted to work out the remaining questions related to the authority of EWEB and City to sell water. Mr. Pryor had yet to identify a real downside to the sale. Mr. Zelenka said his concerns had nothing to do with Veneta, although he acknowledged that community’s lack of options. He said the Veneta contract did not secure the third McKenzie River water right and only got the community “a little further down the road” toward reaching that goal. He suggested that for Veneta to enter into a contract that could be terminated at any time was unrealistic, untenable, and at the least, bad public policy. If there was to be such a contract, it should be permanent given the investment Veneta was proposing to make. Mr. Zelenka believed it was important for Eugene to preserve its water rights, although he pointed out the new water right would serve the community well past 2050 and there was no other significant party in line for the right. His concerns were more focused on Eugene’s own policies and plans as well as concerns about regional planning consistency with Eugene land use laws and growth management policies. He recalled that he had asked earlier how the contract and EWEB as a regional water provider was consistent with Eugene’s Growth Management Policies 1, 2, 5 and 10. Mr. Zelenka wanted to see findings of consistency with those goals. He also suggested the contract created a conflict with State Goal 11, which spoke to the efficient provision of municipal services, and believed that addressing those conflicts would be critical in the appeals process he anticipated. Mr. Brown believed the proposal had initially been presented as an absolute necessity to allow EWEB to perfect its third water right, which was 118 million gallons daily. Eugene was currently using about three percent of the third water right, or about 3.5 million gallons daily. If Veneta’s demand was added, that would total 7.5 million galls daily. Eugene needed to demonstrate that it would use 25 percent of the third right within a reasonable time, and 25 percent was 29.5 million gallons daily. Mr. Brown did not think the contract helped much in perfecting the third right. Mr. Brown suggested the question before the council was whether EWEB became the regional water supplier for southern Lane County. He pointed out that Coburg, Creswell, Junction City, and Elmira might also need more water. They could only grow if they bought water from EWEB, and he questioned whether that was desirable. He suggested that EWEB might not need the third water right, pointing out that it was adequate to serve one million people. Mr. Brown recalled that the 1976 charter amendment vote had been all about controlling growth and preventing sprawl, and the voters had agreed with those goals. He asserted that Veneta was a bedroom community for Eugene. He estimated that 90 percent of the working population worked in Eugene and th drove to Eugene on Highway 126 and West 11 Avenue and asked “what do we get out of it?” Noting that the Agenda Item Summary mentioned that the council could consider a resolution of support for the contract, Ms. Taylor suggested the council could consider a resolution of denial as well. City Manager Ruiz concurred. In response to Ms. Smith’s remarks, Ms. Taylor pointed out that the Veneta contract did nothing in regard to providing Eugene with a second water source. She considered that subject irrelevant to the discussion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2010 Page 3 Work Session