Laserfiche WebLink
City Attorney Klein briefly discussed how the staff - recommended motion would relate to the Lane County <br /> Circuit Court's review w 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 /> City Attorney Klein responded to Mr. Zelenka's <br /> comment and stated that the staff - recommended motion had <br /> been intended to ensure that sufficient information regarding the EWEB sale wou ld be p rovided to the Eugene <br /> City Council in order that they might make an informed decision regarding the sale. <br /> City Attorney Klein hoped that the City might schedule the public forum during the month of May and that the <br /> subsequent public hearing g ublic hearin regarding the EWEB water sale could be scheduled for before the end of June. <br /> Zelenka indicated his understanding that any motions filed by City Mr. Zele Y Y h' Attorney Klein on behalf of the City <br /> g <br /> would be intended to preserve the right of the City of Eugene to participate as an interested party in EWEB's <br /> water sale to Veneta. City Attorney 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 City Attorney Klein had described.. City Attorney Klein responded that the <br /> d was the only course that did not re <br /> course of action he had described y require direct assistance from EWEB. q <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 pe rfected for p ublic use. <br /> n from Ms. Solomon, noted that provide <br /> municipalities were required to <br /> Ms. Wilson, responding to a question p q P <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 re re uired to demonstrate beneficial use <br /> within a reasonable timeframe. <br /> P q <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 /> Ci ty Attorney Klein suggested that City staff might ask EWEB to help the City develop a plan for perfecting <br /> local water rights as part of the upcoming public forums regarding the EWEB water sale to Veneta. <br /> City Attorney Klein, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon noted that EWEB sought the Lane County <br /> Circuit Court's validation on the contract for its proposed water sale to Veneta. He further noted that EWEB's <br /> contract might be deemed valid if it was approved by the Eugene o g PP Y City Council. g <br /> City Manager Ruiz suspected that EWEB's contract with the City of Veneta, if deemed valid by the Lane <br /> County Circuit Court, might be cited as a precedent for any future water sales beyond the Eugene city limits. <br /> 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 /> MINUTES— Eugene City Council May 12, 2010 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br />